The Assembly met at 10.30 am (The Initial Presiding Officer (The Lord Alderdice of Knock) in the Chair).

Lord Alderdice: The House is aware that, under the terms of Initial Standing Order 5(1), two minutes’ silence is to be observed at the beginning of each day’s business, and Members may spend this period in personal prayer or meditation. As this is the first sitting of the Assembly since 1July I propose — by leave of the Assembly — that we stand for the period of reflection and that we extend it to four minutes in memory of those who since we last met have had their lives so brutally and tragically taken from them and in sympathy with the bereaved and the injured.
Will Members please stand.
Members observed four minutes’ silence.

Presiding Officer’s Business

Lord Alderdice: In view of the mandates given by the House on 1 July 1998 that reports be presented by the First and Deputy First Minister(s) (Designate) and by the Committee on Standing Orders by this date, I wrote to the Secretary of State advising her of the necessity for a sitting of the Assembly. I have received the following letter from Mr Paul Murphy, the Minister of State, on her behalf:
"Thank you for your letter of 7 September addressed to … [the Secretary of State], who, as you know, is presently on leave.
By virtue of paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 it falls to the Secretary of State to determine where meetings of the Assembly shall be held, and when.
In the light of your indication of the wishes of Assembly Members, the Secretary of State hereby directs that the Assembly shall meet at Parliament Buildings, Stormont at 10.30am on Monday 14 September until 6.00 pm on Wednesday 30September.
The Secretary of State will consider making a further direction as respects this period, in particular in the light of any indications she receives as to the wishes of Assembly Members after the Assembly has begun to meet."
Before we proceed, it is only right for the Assembly to recognise that an extraordinary amount of work has been done by its staff, by various contractors and, indeed, by others outside. Members will know that some staff have worked exceptionally diligently, often over weekends and far into the night. By leave of the Assembly I ask that our appreciation be conveyed, through the Deputy Clerk, to all concerned.

Mr Alex Maskey: I would like to address you as "Cathaoirleach", which is the Irish for "Chairperson".
First, the British Secretary of State has, of course, designated Parliament Buildings as the location for the Assembly. We shall return to this matter in due course, for we have a number of concerns.
Secondly, the Agreement provides for and encourages the promotion of the Irish language, among others. Therefore the provision of simultaneous translation facilities is another matter to which we shall return in due course.

Lord Alderdice: It is for the Assembly to decide where to meet after what is described in the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 as the appointed day — the day on which power is devolved. The Assembly is entirely at liberty to have discussions and to make its own decisions. I wish simply, without prejudice, to express appreciation to those staff who have worked extremely hard to ensure that we are provided with facilities for the present.
The question of the Irish language and Ulster Scots was raised at the last sitting and in the interim. We have made arrangements for the transcription — translation could not be arranged at this stage — of Irish and Ulster Scots in the Official Report.
A Civil Service trawl has not resulted in our obtaining competent transcribers, so we will have to advertise outside the Service. That matter is proceeding, but in the meantime appropriate arrangements have been made to ensure that Assembly business is properly recorded.
Simultaneous translation is an entirely different matter, which the Assembly will need to discuss later. I have not yet taken action in that regard.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Can it be made clear to Members that if they choose to speak in a language not known by all Members, that will be included in their time? They cannot speak in a language unknown to some Members and then have additional time to speak in English.

Lord Alderdice: I am happy to repeat what I said previously and to affirm that what DrPaisley says is correct. The amount of time that Members have is not altered by the language in which they speak. I have already requested that Members using a language other than English translate for the sake of other Members.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Ag leanstan ar aghaidh uaidh sin, sílim go bhfuil sé go hiomlán cothrom dá má rud é go bhfuil mise ag labhairt i nGaeilge, nó duine ar bith eile ag labhairt i nGaeilge, go bhfuil an t-am ceannann céanna agamsa agus atá ag gach aon duine eile. Ach, má tá mé ag tabhairt aistriúcháin do dhaoine eile — [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: Order.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: — ba chóir go mbeadh breis ama agam leis an aistriúchán sin a chur ar fáil.
If I or any other Member wishes to speak in Irish it is only right that we be given the same amount of time as someone speaking in any other language. If, for the benefit of other Members, in the absence of a translation system, I have to spend time saying in English what I have said in Irish, that time must be separate. If I am asked to provide such a service for Members who do not speak Irish, but am not given extra time to do so, I will not have the same speaking time as others.

Lord Alderdice: I appreciate your view, but the decision as to what facilities are available still rests with the Secretary of State. It is not yet the decision of the Assembly. When the Assembly has power to make its own decisions — for example, when and how to meet — it can address this matter. When one speaks, it is not only for the benefit of one’s listeners but, given that one is trying to communicate with others, also for one’s own benefit to make oneself understood. Therefore translation is equally important to the person speaking and to those listening. Thus I appeal to Members to be courteous to each other by making themselves understandable.
The question MrsdeBrún raises is, in effect, that of simultaneous translation — something which will have to be debated by the Assembly. At this stage I have given the only ruling that I think proper.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I believe that it is the view of the majority of Members that this is a huge waste of Assembly time and of taxpayers’ money. Everyone in this Chamber is perfectly capable of addressing Members in English and being understood fully. I have placed my concerns with you, Mr Presiding Officer, and the Business Committee and will continue to take that position.

Mr Alex Maskey: I wanted to draw attention to two issues to which we will return. Mr Wilson certainly does not speak on behalf of a majority of Members.

Lord Alderdice: As regards expenditure, members of the Hansard staff employed to transcribe Irish or Ulster-Scots will also be doing the normal editing in English. The Assembly will return to this matter. I wish simply to make a ruling until it can be considered more fully.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The best way to resolve the matter is for a translation service to be provided as soon as possible so that Members can speak in whatever language they choose. As has been said, the Agreement gives equality of esteem to both languages and, indeed, to Ullans.

Lord Alderdice: This is undoubtedly a matter on which the Assembly will wish to consult, but those who want to pursue it in the meantime should remember that decisions about the facilities and funding to be made available to us are currently the prerogative of the Secretary of State. Anyone wishing to raise such an issue should do so with her.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: There has been much comment in the press about the facilities in the House. I wonder why nothing has been said about the elaborate bar that is being provided in the basement. That is very strange. In the society in which I was brought up, people would say
"A bar to him and a door to hell. Whoever named it named it well."
Maybe for those reasons they did not want to name it, but it ill becomes the press to pass judgement on others when they are not prepared to judge themselves.

Lord Alderdice: The Member will be aware that in other places refreshment facilities of that kind have particular names. He may be interested to know that when a straw poll on what that establishment might be called was taken, it was suggested that "Place of the Devil’s Buttermilk" would be very suitable.

Mr Jim Shannon: Heich Convenor, those of us in the Chamber who would like to use the Ulster Scots language are quite happy to have the time for translation included in our 10-minute allocation. I hope that other Members will adopt the same approach.

Lord Alderdice: Members will be aware that the Committee on Standing Orders has commented on the draft Additional Standing Orders which the Secretary of State was of a mind to implement today. I have been advised by the Joint Chairmen of the Committee that a response has now been received from the Minister of State indicating that the making of Additional Standing Orders will be deferred until the Assembly has completed its consideration of the interim report from the Committee on Standing Orders later today in case any more points arise in the debate. With the agreement of the Joint Chairmen, copies of the Minister’s response have been left in Members’ pigeon-holes on the second floor.
I would like to remind Members of the Assembly, members of the press and others that, under paragraph 8 of the schedule to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, the privilege given to Members speaking in the House is qualified. It is not the absolute privilege which pertains in other assemblies and which will apply here when the Assembly takes power on the appointed day as set out in the Act. The relevant provision says
"A written or oral statement made by a Member in or for the purposes of the Assembly (or any Committee it may establish) shall be privileged from action for defamation unless it is proved to have been made with malice."
I have discussed this matter with the Government. It is currently under consideration.
With regard to the debate on the interim report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), background-material papers have been placed in the Library, and additional copies are available on request. These are obtainable in Room 8.

Mr Peter Robinson: It seems quite inappropriate for the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to produce a report and simply table it for Members. As the report is devoid of substance, that is not a problem today. If there were some substance — for instance, a proposal capable of amendment — we would need more time to deal with it. On this occasion, however, it is not a problem.

Lord Alderdice: You are quite right to draw attention to the procedural question of how far in advance Members need to have sight of reports and other papers. It is generally appreciated that reports should not be widely distributed before they are presented in the Assembly. The Assembly has the right to see them before others do, although in other places Front-Bench spokesmen are often given sight of material shortly — perhaps an hour or so — before it is presented. Whether this should be considered by the Standing Orders Committee, or whether it is a matter of a convention to be understood by Whips’ offices or others, is something for the Assembly to decide.
When Assembly Members sign the Roll they register a designation — "Unionist", "Nationalist" or "Other". It is also the practice to give the name of the party to which they belong. Members will know from the draft Standing Orders that the SecretaryofState also wishes to establish a register of political parties. At this juncture there is no Standing Order dealing with the question of those who wish to identify themselves as belonging to a political party other than the one for which they stood in the election.
I have received from Mr Agnew, Mr Douglas and Mr Watson a note saying that, following discussion, they have agreed to form a United Unionist Assembly Party, with MrWatson as Leader. There is no Standing Order under which to give a ruling, or to assist with giving a ruling, on how they should now be treated. The nearest Standing Order is the one dealing with the signing of the Roll and the registering of a designation. Seven days’ notice of any change of designation is required.
I have discussed this with the parties, and it has been accepted that, in the absence of a new Standing Order which would clarify the matter, we should apply the seven days’ written notice Rule. The party will therefore be formally recognised in seven days’ time, and any arrangements in respect of it will become substantive then.

Assembly: Roll of Members

Lord Alderdice: As not all Members were present on 1 July, some have not signed the Roll. I invite those who have yet to do so to sign the Roll and to register the designation of identity required by the Initial Standing Orders.
The following Members signed the Roll: Frazer Agnew, Sue Ramsey, Pat Doherty.

Lord Alderdice: I have examined the three signatures and designations, and all appear to be in order.

Assembly: "Shadow" Commission

Motion made:
That this Assembly should proceed to establish a "Shadow" Commission to assist during the transitional period in making preparations for the effective functioning of the Assembly – the membership and functions of the "Shadow" Commission being the same as those set out for the Commission in the NorthernIreland Bill.
Terms of Reference:
The "Shadow" Commission will consider matters relevant to providing the Assembly with the property, staff and services required for the Assembly’s purposes.
Composition: Initial Presiding Officer Rev Robert Coulter Mr John Fee Mr Peter Robinson MP Mr Francie Molloy Mrs Eileen Bell
Quorum:
The Commission will decide its quorum at the first meeting.
— [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Lord Alderdice: The Northern Ireland Bill, like other Bills of a similar nature, provides for the establishment of a body corporate to take responsibility for all legal matters relevant to the Assembly, for the provision of property, staff, services and financial arrangements for Members and for other such matters.
Given that the Commission will take full responsibility for these matters on the appointed day, and given that in respect of all other matters shadow arrangements have been made in order that Assembly Members may read themselves into their responsibilities, it is proposed that the Commission be established on the same basis and with the same numbers and arrangements as provided for in the Act during the period of the shadow Assembly.
I want to emphasise one or two things. First, the number of Members was to be five, but I have been advised that some of the smaller parties are not content with this. Representations on the matter will need to be made to the Secretary of State. It is possible for the number to be increased, but that will be a matter for the Secretary of State. Anyway, there is no guarantee that places would be taken up by any particular party. It is a matter for the Assembly
Secondly, Members will notice that some aspects of the motion are definite — for example, in respect of composition — and others are less so. The item "Quorum", to which we need to refer under the Initial Standing Orders, states that the Commission will decide its quorum at the first meeting. The reason for this lack of definition is that in the Act it is left to the substantive Commission to decide its own quorum. Should the Assembly wish to give guidance to the shadow Commission, that, I am sure, would not be inappropriate. The motion simply follows closely the matters set out in the Act.
Thirdly, I should emphasise that these appointments are to the shadow Assembly Commission and will be in force only for the shadow period. There will need to be a new resolution — possibly with changes in the membership, and so on — for the substantive Commission.

Mr Francie Molloy: I welcome the setting up of the Commission, for it is a very important body. It is important that there be transparency in dealings about property, staff and services. We should also ensure that there is equality of employment. We must deal with the whole issue of fair employment in the Civil Service. It is important that the Commission be set up now and that its work proceed as quickly as possible.

Mr Sam Foster: With regard to services and property, there is an issue which concerns me. During the presidential visit the Union flag was not flown on this Building. Nor was the Stars and Stripes. Surely that would have been correct protocol. It was an insult to the sovereignty of this state and against the Belfast Agreement.

Lord Alderdice: The visit was under the auspices of the Government, who still have control of the Building. I understand that protocol advice was taken and was followed.
Management of the Building will come under the auspices of the Commission after the devolution of power. Some aspects of the running of the estate will stay in other hands, unless it is decided to change the arrangements.
Responsibility for the way in which matters are dealt with within the Building will be shared by the Commission, Assembly Members and the Executive — the First and Deputy First Ministers already occupy some parts of the Building — and there will need to be some discussion and negotiation. It would be valuable to have a shadow Commission to explore these matters before power is devolved.

Mr Gerry Adams: Tá pointe amháin ar an ábhar seo agus is ábhar an-tábhachtach é, ábhar na mbratach.
I want to draw attention a Chathaoirligh to the Good Friday Agreement and the issue of flags. In paragraph 5 of the section headed "Economic, Social and Cultural Issues" the Agreement says
"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."
That is very important. I appreciate — indeed, SinnFein appreciates — that there are citizens here who value the Union flag, but we do not. There must be parity of esteem and equality of opportunity. We need to move into a new situation in which, with the agreement in mind, the Irish national flag is given parity with the Union flag.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrInitial Presiding Officer. I am not sure of the protocol followed by the Government, but I think that it is very doubtful. Usually the flags of both countries are flown on certain occasions, but I am not at all surprised at what the Member has said, for HerMajesty’s Lord Lieutenants were also snubbed during the visit of the President. What is more, the President’s helicopter would not land in the Army barracks at Armagh. It was said that that could offend the Irish Republican Army and damage the peace process. Special arrangements had to be made.
These are serious matters, and I do not think anyone on this side of the House would interpret what has been said by the Leader of IRA/Sinn Fein as meaning that the Union flag should not be flown. There is no such thing in the agreement, and it would be ridiculous to say that the national flag could not be flown on a building of this nature.
Perhaps you would also clarify whether the grounds and the Building will come under the auspices of the Commission.

Lord Alderdice: May I prevail upon Members to try to keep to the business motion, as, indeed, Dr Paisley has just done. As I understand it, the current state of affairs is that this Building will come under the auspices of the Assembly Commission, but not all parts of the estate. Some parts of the estate are likely to remain under the direct control of the Secretary of State. The Assembly will clearly want to discuss, and perhaps even negotiate, these matters. This emphasises the need for a "Shadow" body to enable Members to become clearer about certain issues in advance of taking power.
This is essentially a business motion to establish the Commission, and I urge Members not to stray into other matters, however important and ultimately relevant.

Mr John Kelly: If terms like "Sinn Fein/IRA" are to be used, may other Members feel free to use terms like "DUP/LVF"?

Lord Alderdice: I am not sure that I am in a position to give rulings of the kind that you are inviting me to give.

John Taylor: I fully support the motion to create a Commission, but I want to emphasise the necessity for it to direct its attention to the management not just of this Building but of all buildings and land within the Stormont Estate. Originally, under devolution, StormontCastle was very much the seat of the Executive, and StormontHouse was the seat of the then Speaker. I can understand that in recent years there has been a grey area, but when full devolution comes next year those who are currently in our premises must move to a more suitable location.
The Union flag is the national flag of the UnitedKingdom. The agreement which every party in this Building supported — [Interruption]

Mr Jim Wells: One or two people did not.

John Taylor: The agreement was supported by several of those who have commented on the Union flag today. I want to emphasise that those who supported the agreement accepted the legitimacy of NorthernIreland’s being part of the UnitedKingdom. The flag of the UnitedKingdom is the Union flag, and there should be no debate or argument about that.

Lord Alderdice: I assume that the shadow Assembly Commission will read the record of this debate and will consider all the matters that have been raised. Certainly that is my advice.

Rev William McCrea: Mr Taylor may mock those who voted against this agreement, but the vast majority of the Unionist population did just that. Let it be made clear that some of us were to be murdered by the IRA and that Sinn Fein, as the political wing of that terrorist organisation, supported such action. People died to keep Ulster free as a part of the United Kingdom. This country has only one flag — the Union flag.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly should proceed to establish a "Shadow" Commission to assist during the transitional period in making preparations for the effective functioning of the Assembly – the membership and functions of the "Shadow" Commission being the same as those set out for the Commission in the NorthernIreland Bill.
Terms of Reference:
The Shadow Commission will consider matters relevant to providing the Assembly with the property, staff and services required for the Assembly’s purposes.
Composition: InitialPresidingOfficer RevRobertCoulter MrJohnFee MrPeterRobinsonMP MrFrancieMolloy MrsEileenBell
Quorum: The Commission will decide its quorum at the first meeting.

Assembly: Ad Hoc Committee on Procedural Consequences of Devolution

Motion made:
That under the terms of Initial Standing Order 15 this Assembly appoints an ad hoc Committee to consider the procedural consequences of devolution as they are likely to affect the relationship between and workings of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament and, by Tuesday 6 October 1998, to submit a report to the Assembly which, if approved, will be forwarded to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons.

— [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Lord Alderdice: By way of background I should explain that the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons is enquiring into the procedural consequences of devolution, including relationships with the NorthernIreland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Members of the House of Commons and parties represented there are, of course, free to make their own representations, and will undoubtedly do so, but the Assembly itself has been asked to make representations on the matter.
The House of Commons Procedure Committee has identified a number of detailed concerns on which comments are welcome, but has invited the response by 9October. There have been discussions with all the parties on this matter, and there is a general view that the Assembly should take the opportunity to comment on these and any other related matters. Therefore the motion has been put on the Order Paper so that a response can be made to the Procedure Committee on or before 9October.

Mr Peter Robinson: My understanding is that the Committee has the maximum membership to which it is entitled under the Initial Standing Orders. However, there is no provision for representation from the United Unionist Party, which will be recognised fully in a week’s time. That party will have a greater claim to membership of the Committee than the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition or the Progressive Unionist Party and the Committee’s business will still be on-going when the United Unionist Party is fully recognised as a political party in this Assembly.

Lord Alderdice: What has been said is, in substance, true. When the Standing Orders Committee was established that Committee invited at an early stage an observer from those who were, and who are still described as Independent Members.
I should also add that a similar invitation was accepted in respect of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer.
Having advised the Assembly today that a new party will be recognised in seven days’ time, this matter must now be considered properly by the Committee on Standing Orders both on the question of recognition, about which I have made an interim ruling, and on the question of Committee compositions. The number of Members on Committees is at its maximum, and the Committee on Standing Orders may wish to advise the Assembly on this matter. It is proper that this Committee review the Assembly’s Standing Orders, and likewise the Whips should discuss the matter themselves and with the representative of the new party.

Dr Sean Farren: We are dealing here with the manner in which matters will be dealt with in this Assembly as opposed to Westminster. I therefore seek clarification about what is implied by "procedural consequences". I take it that these are distinct from "political consequences."

Lord Alderdice: My understanding is that the House of Commons Procedure Committee is looking at procedures at Westminster subsequent to devolution. It will not be giving guidance on how the Assembly should deal with its procedures. In the past, in other political arrangements and when this Chamber was in use, there were certain conventions about what could and could not be done. With the expansion of devolution, and in these different circumstances, more than mere conventions may be required. There are also issues about how the House of Commons would address some of these matters such as the membership of Committees. Of course, we now also have the question of Europe and its relationship with Westminster. However, it is not an examination of our procedures so much as an examination of the procedures that Westminster may wish to make changes to having invited our comments.

Mr Peter Robinson: If you have made a ruling on this, then I am not quite sure what it is. I asked about the position of the prospective United Unionist Assembly Party. Are you saying that the Committee on Standing Orders should give an early report on that matter before it reports in full on 26October? A lot of water may have flowed under the bridge by that date.
In relation to this Committee’s role, the House of Commons is looking at the impact of devolution in Scotland, Wales and NorthernIreland on the procedures of the House. For instance, will a Minister responsible to the UnitedKingdom Parliament be answerable for matters that are the responsibility of this elected body? Will he answer questions in Parliament on NorthernIreland, questions relating to environment, health and education? Will written answers come from prospective Ministers in this Assembly? Will a Select Committee for NorthernIreland have the right to look at matters which have been delegated to the Assembly in Northern Ireland?
Those are issues that this Committee will look at. It will also look at the famed West Lothian question — whether representatives who have no right in the House of Commons to amend legislation for NorthernIreland should see the legislation for their part of the UnitedKingdom amended by NorthernIreland Members.

Lord Alderdice: It is not for me to tell the Committee on Standing Orders what to do or when to report. That would be entirely improper.
When the new party is recognised in seven days’ time, that will have consequences for the memberships of Committees because, under the current Standing Orders the Committees cannot increase the numbers of places. Any proposed changes will have to be considered by the Standing Orders Committee which could come back to the Assembly in advance of 26 October with a number of interim reports or reports on various issues and seek the Assembly’s backing for approval by the Secretary of State. However, it would be quite improper for me to give a directive to the Standing Orders Committee. It will conduct its own business.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: It may be of some advantage to members of that Committee, if it is established, to consider the reports presented by the NorthernIreland Forum on both Scottish and Welsh devolution.
Indeed, there is another procedural question which must be addressed and that is the relationship that this House is to have with the European Parliament. Some matters will be coming directly from Europe to the Floor of the House, and we will have to consider the procedural ramifications of that.
I hope that we will be able to report by 6October. I note that one report has already been produced since 1July. It is not a comprehensive report at all, and I hope that this Committee, when established, will be able to present a more detailed report and expedite its business much more efficiently.

Mr Nigel Dodds: May I come back to the point about the United Unionist Assembly Party and its representation on this Committee? As a member of the Standing Orders Committee, and not wishing to add to the work of that Committee unnecessarily, I think that the Initial Standing Orders are already clear on this point. We do not need clarification from the Standing Orders Committee, for Rule 15(2) says
"each party with at least two members shall have at least one seat on each Committee."
That will be the case from next Monday, so it is up to those in charge of administrative matters, rather than the Standing Orders Committee, to implement the Rule. The Rule also requires that there should be, as far as possible, a fair reflection of parties participating in the Assembly. Since there is an upper limit of 18 seats, amendments will have to be made simply to the balance of the parties on the Committee. It does not need any further consideration by the Standing Orders Committee.

Lord Alderdice: The reason that the Standing Orders Committee may wish to look at it, is the maximum number of members allowed, to which you referred. The Standing Orders Committee could, for example, decide to solve the problem by increasing the upper limit to 19members, or by coming to some other arrangement, but it would be quite out of order for me to direct the Committee. The Standing Orders Committee should advise on this issue.

Sir Reg Empey: In the absence of a ruling on the total number, may I point out that there is already a report coming to the Assembly on 6October about the House of Commons Procedure Committee. If we agree this motion it will not be necessary to wait until 26October to have a report from the Standing Orders Committee to resolve these matters. It might be worthwhile suggesting to the Standing Orders Committee that it report on 6October rather than waiting until 26October.

Lord Alderdice: It would be out of order for me to propose that to the Standing Orders Committee, members of the Committee themselves or the joint Chairmen would be quite at liberty to do so.

Mr Denis Haughey: I am referring to the point made by MrDodds in respect of Rule 15(2) of the preliminary Standing Orders. The problem — and it is one that members of the Democratic Unionist Party raised in the Standing Orders Committee — is what precisely is to be understood by the word "party". That is a matter that the Standing Orders Committee will have to return to at the appointed time.

Mr Peter Robinson: The Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer agreed that the proper course would be to recognise the new political party seven days after notice had been given; that issue is settled. So under the Initial Standing Orders that party will, as from next Monday, have an entitlement to one place on each Committee. However, if the composition of this Committee is as shown on the Order Paper there would be no place available since the Initial Standing Orders make it clear that the maximum membership is 18. Therefore the representation of one of the existing parties would need to be reduced by one.
The two parties that have the most representation per head are the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Fein. Their representation should be reduced by one to allow a Member from that Committee, the United Unionist Assembly Party, to be included.

Lord Alderdice: We should remember that the Committees were established not only by Standing Orders but also by a motion in the Assembly. The representation by party was fixed by an Assembly motion on 1July 1998; I would be exceeding my authority were I to allow any changes to the membership of that Committee except by a further motion. Your proposition should more properly be made to the Standing Orders Committee or in a motion to the next meeting of the Assembly.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is it not correct that the responsibility for these Initial Standing Orders lies with the Secretary of State? She imposed them, and we have had to accept them. That being the case, this is not a decision for the Standing Orders Committee of this House. The Secretary of State must decide. Surely you should be making representation to her, pointing out the inconsistency caused by the creation of this new party and suggesting that she agree to their being represented on the Committees.

Lord Alderdice: I appreciate your analysis of the lines of authority, Dr Paisley, but I think it is not entirely correct. The authority under which these Standing Orders were put in place is, indeed, that of the Secretary of State. Any changes of any description to the Standing Orders between now and the devolution of power have to be authorised by the Secretary of State. However, the execution of those Standing Orders is a matter for the Assembly.
If the Secretary of State were not convinced that her wishes were being carried out she would, of course, be entirely at liberty to make that clear. She has already made clear her wish that any further Standing Orders which, as you quite rightly say, she would have to authorise, should be made, as far as possible, with the agreement of the Assembly. That is why — and I make this point on behalf of the Assembly — no new Standing Orders should be put in place until the Standing Orders Committee and, if possible, the Assembly as a whole has been consulted.
You will note that no new StandingOrders have been put in place yet prior to the initial Report of the Standing Orders Committee and today’s debate. I imagine that the Assembly will want those proprieties to continue to be recognised.

Mr Gerry Adams: I note that none of the members of this new party have spoken for themselves although the Democratic Unionist Party is obviously concerned. These Members are anti-agreement, and they want to rejig the arithmetic. These three Members are clearly within the Unionist bloc, and should there be any pruning of the representation, then the parties losing a seat or seats should also be within the Unionist bloc, in keeping with the broad sense of this agreement.

Lord Alderdice: Our Rules are very important, and we abide by them no matter what our feelings. I will do my utmost as a servant of the Assembly to abide by the Rules, and where no such Rules exist I shall seek guidance from Members.

Mr Peter Robinson: Clearly it is not a matter of taking representation from one bloc or another; it is a case of getting the fullest representation on the Committee. The arithmetic means that the Ulster Unionist Party has one representative for every seven Members, which is roughly the same as the Democratic Unionist Party. By contrast the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Fein each have one representative for every six Members, so very clearly it is one of those two parties that has to give up one of its Members. In that vein may I ask you, MrInitialPresidingOfficer, to move an amendment to this motion?

Lord Alderdice: The Standing Orders state that all amendments must be received in writing at least one hour before the start of the day’s business. As I did not receive any amendments in advance of that time, I am unable to accept the Member’s suggestion.

Mr Peter Robinson: You told us about this just a short time ago. How could we possibly have put down an amendment on something about which we were unaware?

Lord Alderdice: I am sorry, MrRobinson. The Order Paper is quite clear about the membership as things were extant. There is not, at this point, a newly recognised party. It will not be recognised until 10.20 am next Monday — seven days from the receipt of the written notice. Therefore the question about its membership of Committees will have to wait until after that time. It would be entirely proper at that stage for the tabling of a motion to deal with the matter.

Mr Peter Robinson: My proposition was not that we agree to membership by a Member of the United Unionist Assembly Party but that we leave a position free. Will you give a ruling that next Monday there will be a motion ensuring that the Standing Orders to which this Assembly is bound shall be upheld and that they will have membership of that Committee?

Lord Alderdice: I cannot give the Member an immediate ruling. In the Initial Standing Orders and in the draft Orders which the SecretaryofState sent, and which so many Members will have perused, there is a curious absence of information about how to deal with the circumstances in which a Member changes his party affiliation, a change which may also affect the representative arrangements. This is therefore a more important matter than membership of this adhoc committee.
The draft Standing Orders indicate clearly the way in which the d’Hondt system should proceed, and when the time comes we will do that. However, if a number of Members were then to indicate that they were changing their party affiliation, subsequent to that, but not their designation as Unionist, Nationalist or Other affiliation, then it is quite possible that that could change the numbers and the out-working of d’Hondt if it were to be reworked at that point. But there is no indication about whether it should be reworked at that point; whether it should be reworked on the initiation of the PresidingOfficer of the time; or whether it should require a motion to the Assembly proposing that there be a reworking.
That is clearly an omission in the Standing Orders. It is not surprising that there should be such an omission, but I am extremely reluctant, as Initial Presiding Officer, to give a ruling on it without thoroughly considering the question and consulting with the parties. It may be that events will require me to consult, or I may be pressed to make some kind of ruling. If so, I will do so as properly and as soon as I can. However, the issue only came to me, in a formal way, a few minutes before we met, and it would be quite wrong for me to make a ruling without such due consideration.

Mr Peter Robinson: I ask you to reflect on this matter, because the Standing Orders are not silent on it. They are clear, and they are precise. Standing Order 15.2 says that each party, with at least two Members, shall have at least one seat on each Committee. You will want to ensure that these Standing Orders are upheld and, therefore, I ask you to consider that matter. I give notice that if the maximum number on any Committee is 18, one seat has to be made available for the new party. If we are sitting next Monday, we will propose that Sinn Fein’s representation be reduced by one to allow the new party to have that one seat.

Lord Alderdice: I can assure you that when the matter becomes formally relevant I will give due consideration to it and report back to the Assembly.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I know that you cannot, or are unwilling, to give a ruling on the point raised by MrRobinson. However, could you give us a ruling on the designation of the Member of the United Unionist Assembly Party who signed the register this morning? Are you accepting the designation he gave, or does he have to wait seven days in a state of perpetual purgatory until he is accepted as a member of the United Unionist Assembly Party?

Lord Alderdice: The notion of perpetual purgatory is an interesting theological one, and I am sure it could be taken up in another place.
The designation of the Unionist Member who signed this morning was clearly Unionist. The affiliation he gave was that of the new party that has just been referred to, but that new affiliation and the recognition of that party as a party must wait for seven days, as was discussed earlier.

Mr Alex Maskey: In case Mr Robinson spends the rest of the week, in extended purgatory or whenever, thinking that Sinn Fein is going to drop a member of any of the Committees, let me say that this is not a matter for him to decide. I do not want any such notion to slip onto the record by default. You quite rightly pointed out that the matter is not yet resolved. There is not a new party in the Assembly yet. When the matter is fully resolved, we will all deal with it, and the question of proportionality will certainly be dealt with, I am sure, satisfactorily.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That under the terms of Initial Standing Order 15 this Assembly appoints an ad hoc Committee to consider the procedural consequences of devolution as they are likely to affect the relationship between, and workings of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament and, by Tuesday 6 October 1998, to submit a report to the Assembly which, if approved, will be forwarded to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons.

Mr Gerry Adams: A Chathaoirligh, pointe amháin eile. Could you make it clear to the Assembly that during a vote a Member may say "Tá" or "Níl" instead of "Aye" or "No".

Lord Alderdice: As I indicated — and our practice during the first meeting of the Assembly made this clear — people are free to respond in a number of different ways, and I will do my best to interpret what is said accurately and correctly.
In whatever language Members wish to respond — and most notably, as you indicate, in Irish, or in Ulster-Scots as some Members used at the last meeting — I assume they will do so at the appropriate point when I call for the Ayes and the Noes. Otherwise the Clerks and I will be left in some confusion.

Mr Gerry Adams: This is only important in the context of trying to work out a new dispensation, and we should not allow the issue of the Irish language to become party political or to in any way be seen as being Ulster or Nationalist. It is therefore appropriate in your position of Cathaoirleach that you reflect that when addressing the Assembly. You did so very clearly at the first meeting; I note that it has not been done today.

Lord Alderdice: I did not refer to the matter again. As far as my own designation is concerned, I am quite happy if it is Ceann Comhairle or Cathaoirleach or whatever other designation Members wish to use. Indeed, even in English quite a considerable number of designations have been given to me — some of them more accurate than others. I am called many things, as you know.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: If Members are going to speak in two or three different languages when they are asked to vote, it will be like the Tower of Babel in here, and Members are going to be totally and utterly confused about whether this House is for or against a motion. Why can Members not vote in the way that is laid down in the Standing Orders — by saying either "Aye" or "No"?

Lord Alderdice: I certainly urge Members to try to stick to the Standing Orders, and my understanding of them is that I am the Initial Presiding Officer rather than the Presiding Officer (Designate).

Mr Sammy Wilson: Mr Presiding Officer, would you accept "Dead on" or "Catch yourself on"? Where are you going to stop this nonsense? If this is to be extended as widely as you suggest, I would be entitled to use my preferred response in recognition of how people in east Belfast say yes or no. If this House is to understand whether Members are for or against a motion — and I noticed the odd syllable of English creeping into some of MrMaskey’s speeches this morning — can we not just stick to saying "Yes" or "No" in a language which I hope we can all speak and understand?

Lord Alderdice: In respect of your two acclamations, MrWilson, I assume that "Dead on" means yes but that "Catch yourself on" means something rather different. That is why I appeal to Members that if they wish to give assent, they do so in whatever way they wish, either with a positive grunt or a more clear articulation when I ask for the ayes, and those who wish to vote against give a negative grunt, or whatever, when I ask for the noes, and we will do our best to interpret them accurately.

Mr Roy Beggs: At our initial meeting it was specified that Members could use whatever language they wished when responding but only an "Aye" or a "Nay" would be recognised for voting purposes.

Lord Alderdice: I am trying to be as generous as possible, even with the pronunciation of some of the ayes and noes.

Dr Sean Farren: Mr Presiding Officer, it is not the case that the words "Aye" and "Nay" are not part of Queen’s English? What language are we speaking when we say "Aye" and "Nay"?

John Taylor: "Tá" could also be misunderstood: in many regions of England that means "Thanks".

Lord Alderdice: There has been a fairly generous allocation of time for that debate so can we move on to receive the Report of the Standing Orders Committee, which will, undoubtedly, wish to consider these matters in further depth.
The two major reports are going to be dealt with in the order they appear on the Order Paper because that is the order in which the mandates were given at the last Assembly meeting.

Assembly: Standing Orders

Mr Denis Haughey: As co-Chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders, I present to the Assembly the Interim Report. In conjunction with this Report Members should read the minutes of the Committee meeting of 1 September, which have been circulated, and the letter of 10 September from the Minister of State, Mr Murphy.
I beg to move the following motion:
That the Assembly takes note of the interim report prepared by the Committee on Standing Orders and grants leave for the preparation and presentation of a full report by 26October 1998.
I would like to thank my co-Chairman, MrFred Cobain, for his help and co-operation. How Mr Cobain and I came to be co-Chairmen of the Committee is an intriguing story of fancy political footwork and occasional trick photography, but I will not bore Members with the details.
I thank the other members of the Committee for their hard work and their contribution to the formulation of this document. I also thank others who have attended in their capacity as observers for their interest in the work of the Committee. The Committee is also indebted to the Acting Clerk, the Second Clerk and the Third Clerk for their very considerable help. The Committee has worked expeditiously and harmoniously to get to this point.
The Committee was set up by the Assembly on 1 July 1998, under Paragraph 15 of the Initial Standing Orders, and the terms of reference are as follows:
"To assist the Assembly in its consideration of Standing Orders and to report to the Assembly by 14September 1998."
The Committee has a composition of four Members from the Ulster Unionist Party, four from the Social Democratic and Labour Party, three from the Democratic Unionist Party, three from Sinn Fein and one each from the Alliance Party, the United Kingdom Unionist Party, the Progressive Unionist Party and the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition. In the course of its business, the Committee also accorded observer status to the Independent Unionist grouping. It met for the first time on 6 July and there have been five meetings of the Committee since then.
First, the Committee gathered information from a wide-range of sources. We looked at examples of Standing Orders from the House of Commons, from the Dáil, from the European Parliament and from other bodies. We have considered 11 Rules, agreeing seven of them and remitting the other four for further in-depth consideration at future meetings. There is a full list of those in Annex A to the Report.
We have also had to deal with the Additional Standing Orders sent to us by the Secretary of State, by way of consultation. Members will find a copy of those draft Additional Standing Orders in the Report along with the Committee’s response to them.
The letter from the Minister of State, MrMurphy, indicates clearly that the opinions of the Committee on Standing Orders are being listened to. We must now deal with some potentially difficult Standing Orders and, from next week, the Committee will be meeting twice a week in order to take this business forward.
I commend this report to the House. It represents the product of many hours of hard and constructive work by members and officials of the Committee.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I join MrHaughey in expressing our gratitude to the clerks who have had to work very hard at the outset of this Committee to gather all the relevant papers and documentation from other places. The real work of this Committee begins now, for we have really only begun to discuss the main issues. It would be wrong to deal just with the procedures and the setting up of the Committee and not to detail some of the issues which the Committee has already dealt with and, indeed, some of the issues which we may have to deal with shortly in order to meet the 26 October deadline.
A number of the issues that the Committee has dealt with relate to issues that have already arisen today in the House. This demonstrates the need to resolve these issues urgently, in particular, the question of designation and the issue of whether Members should be entitled to change designation by giving seven days’ notice. This is not in the agreement or in the legislation. But here we have it in the Standing Orders, designed to allow Members to jump back and forward at seven days’ notice to help particular parties out of a difficulty if they feel that they are not going to obtain support in the House under the cross-community voting provision.
Despite the opposition of some Ulster Unionist Party Members — not all of them — and one or two of the smaller parties, I am glad to report that there seems to be a general consensus that it is wrong in principle that Members who designate themselves as Unionists or Nationalists should, after seven days’ notice, be able to change their designation purely for the purposes of ensuring that a particular vote is won in either the Unionist or National block and then switch back to their real designation. Such action would bring this House and its proceedings into total disrepute and so it is essential that when we are dealing with these Standing Orders, we delete this offensive mechanism.
I hope the Committee Members will see that this is a matter of principle and that when Members designate themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist, that designation should remain — that was the intention and purpose of the arrangements that were set up.
One of the smaller parties argued that it would allow for movement if people could change their designation. But the only effect of changing from Unionist to Other or from Nationalist to Other is that one’s vote is lost for the purposes of cross-community voting. The only reason that parties want to have this procedural ability to change designation is to ensure that, instead of their vote not counting under the cross-community provisions, it will count on certain occasions when it suits either the Ulster Unionist Party or the Social Democratic and Labour Party.
I want to discuss one or two of the matters outlined in the draft Initial Standing Orders sent to the Members of the Committee by the Secretary of State and to which you referred earlier. The Secretary of State has undertaken to take on board what is said by the Committee and by the Assembly today.
May I draw Members’ attention to page 1 of the Committee on Standing Orders’ Report and, in particular, to paragraph B, "Appointment of Ministers (Designate)". It was advanced in the Committee that the Assembly should not only have the ability to pass or to reject proposals coming from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) in relation to the numbers of Departments and the functions within each Department, but that Members of the Assembly should also have the right to table amendments.
Amazingly there was a view advanced in the Standing Orders Committee that that would not be appropriate; that it should be a take-it-or-leave-it issue, that when the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) present to this Assembly their substantive report, the Members’ should accept it or reject it in total and not have the right to put down amendments as the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) would, of course, have consulted widely.
The same argument was used during the years of direct rule when we were not allowed to amend Orders in Council which were brought to the House of Commons by Northern Ireland Office Ministers. We had to accept or reject them in total.
There were six members of the Committee who voted against a proposal that it should be explicitly recognised within Standing Orders that we should have the right to put down amendments to any such proposal. I hope that the Minister present today, will convey the tenor of our deliberations back to the SecretaryofState and that she will consider that there has been a cross-community vote in favour of ensuring that amendments can be put forward and deliberated by the Assembly.
May I also draw Members’ attention to part D, headed "Exclusion or Removal from Office", of the Secretary of State’s draft Additional Standing Orders. The Committee has completely omitted any provision which would enable the SecretaryofState to table or bring to the attention of the Assembly those matters that were so important during the House of Commons debate. The SecretaryofState inserted provisions into the Northern Ireland Bill which enable her to consider certain issues, such as parties not committed to exclusively peaceful means, or parties that do not co-operate with the decommissioning body or parties who are engaged in paramilitary punishment attacks and so on.
There was also provision for those matters to be referred to the Assembly. However, there is no provision in the Standing Orders for that. Whether that was simply an oversight or whether it was deliberate remains to be seen, but it must be rectified by the Secretary of State when she considers these Initial Standing Orders and when she receives the report from the Assembly.
It is incredible to think that the Northern Ireland Office could have overlooked this matter, which was the subject of intense debate and deliberation in the House of Commons. The Northern Ireland Office, having deliberated and assured us that these were all issues that the SecretaryofState would take into account, made no provision for the Assembly’s part in that or for any motion to be put down other than by the First Minister (Designate), the Deputy First Minister (Designate) of a Commission of 30Members. That must be rectified as well, and I hope that the SecretaryofState will do that.
I am sure that Members will devote themselves assiduously to the path that is before us. It will be challenging to meet the 26October deadline, but it is absolutely essential that we have Standing Orders which are owned by the Members of this Assembly and which have not simply been imposed upon us by the SecretaryofState. If we leave it to the SecretaryofState, we will not have Standing Orders which will be acceptable to the vast majority of Members.

Mr Seamus Close: When I came here this morning I was reminded of some words from Scripture:
"Lord, it is good to be here."
Having been here for an hour and a half, I am now beginning to doubt whether it is good. However, I would like to join in the thanks being given to the two co-Chairmen of the Standing Orders Committee and to all the Committee Members. We have worked diligently over these past few weeks at our task to produce the rules necessary for the good order and conduct of the House. We did, as has already been stated, I suppose take the easy way out. We began with the less contentious issues. Undoubtedly there will be others which will be more difficult to resolve in the future.
12.00
The report before us is self-explanatory, and in commending it to the Assembly I would like to draw attention to two specific issues. One is the thorny issue of designation whereby
"Members shall then take their seats by signing the Assembly’s Role of Membership and registering a designation of identity — Nationalist, Unionist or [ ]".
Members will note the brackets in the report, whereas in the Initial Standing Orders produced by the Secretary of State, the word "Other" was included there. Since its inception, this party has made it absolutely clear that we are not large "N" Nationalist or large "U" Unionist. We want to continue to be known, as we have done so over the last 20-odd years, that we are clearly a party of the centre, of that there is no doubt. The electorate know and appreciate that, and the Standing Orders of this House must recognise those who are not large "N" Nationalist or large "U" Unionist.
The Initial Standing Orders state that Members designate themselves as "Unionist, Nationalist or Other". It is quite clear to the Alliance Party that that "Other" refers to "Other" designation. It is not just "Other" left hanging in mid-air. That is why we have argued and will continue to argue that the word "centre" must be permissible to designation. We will not be arrogant and dictate to other Members how they wish their designation to be described. I am perfectly happy for the Members of the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Progressive Unionist Party or whoever else to designate themselves as Unionist.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I would like clarification as to the real argument that Mr Close is making about designation. I am sure that everyone in the House understands the centre ground when one talks about economics or social policies, but what in constitutional terms is his definition of the centre ground between Unionism and Nationalism? It would be a very intriguing explanation in view of his remarks.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the Member for giving me the opportunity to explain and I could do so at great length, but I feel that today would be an inappropriate time in which to describe exactly where the Alliance Party stands. The Member believes and understands the Alliance Party’s ethos, why it came into being and its raison d’être in Northern Ireland. The job it has been doing in Northern Ireland needs no further clarification from me. I am referring here to the Initial Standing Orders produced by the Secretary of State where they say
"Members shall take their seats by signing the Assembly’s roll of membership and registering a designation of identity — Nationalist, Unionist or Other."
My argument is that that "Other", as far as the Alliance Party is concerned, means centre. Members should not have any difficulty with that because I am perfectly content to accept other parties’ designation of themselves. So please do the Alliance Party the courtesy of permitting itself to be described as a centre party.
Mr Dodds referred to this change of identity every seven days. We are offering the people of Northern Ireland a new opportunity, we want them to respect the dealings and operations of this House. We do not want to start off with some farcical procedure by which Members can change their designation willy-nilly by giving seven days’ notice. That would do us all a tremendous disservice, and I urge that that particular Standing Order be changed.
It has been argued that we should recognise people’s right to change their designation, and as I suggested at the Standing Order Committee meeting, let us recognise that right. Perhaps they made a mistake; perhaps they were not sure of where they stood, and they should have the right to change. But I believe that that right should be restricted to one occasion. If they wish to change, let them change once and have done with it. But let us not have a situation where on a weekly basis, simply for expediency or to thwart the purposes of votes in this House, individuals can move from one side to the other. That would be inappropriate. This is all I have to say on these two issues at this stage. There are others which will, no doubt, arise in the weeks ahead. I commend the Report to the House.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I, too, rise to respond to this particular Standing Order and for exactly the same reasons.
When the Northern Ireland Womens’ Coalition Members signed the Roll Book, we wrote "Inclusive Other", our reason being that we hope that one day in this country people’s political identities can be respected as crossing and that we will be able to work with our differences. I understand the reasons why the voting mechanisms are as they are in the agreement, but the opportunity should be available for those who wish to have themselves designated in a different way to do so.
By designating yourself as centre, you are saying to the rest of the people here that they are at the extremes and I do not believe that to be the case. There will be many times when people in this room will take a central, socialist or a conservative position on particular social and economic issues and no one should be viewed as being extreme for having done so.
The fact that the seven-day rule is there permits a party like ours to protect the agreement. We will not vote according to whether it is a Nationalist or a Unionist issue. We will vote to protect the agreement, which is the mandate on which we were elected. We believe that this rule has been inserted to allow us to protect the agreement against those who were not in favour of it and do not wish for it to be proceeded by this House. We will give the required notice.
The situation will not be so radical; Members will have seven days’ notice and those who are opposed to the particular issues will know in advance what the arguments will be. The NorthernIreland Women’s Coalition will insist that this rule is not changed so that people may take advantage of it only once; it should remain throughout the four years during which the House will be sitting.
There is a review mechanism in the agreement, and those who are unhappy with the current voting procedures or the designations, which some would say institutionalise sectarianism in this county, can give notice to have that review.
But the Standing Order present should be retained so that those who experience no difficulty representing Nationalists, Unionists and others, in the most inclusive fashion, can protect the agreement when we need to.

Mr Robert McCartney: I speak as a member of the Standing Orders Committee. My remarks relate specifically to the rule that would give licence to political chameleons who wish from time to time to change their colour according to the exigencies of the day.
It should be immediately apparent to everyone that the working of the Assembly, and whatever structures arise from it, is to be based on consensus. The consensus was constructed by the agreement to facilitate an operation between the two essential groups in Northern Ireland who have been advancing their political goals and ideologies: Unionists and Nationalists. Indeed, if one looks at the agreement, and particularly at the arrangements made for dealing with that consensus, one will see that the agreement provides for either a majority, a clear majority, within each of those communities or, in some circumstances, for a 40% majority.
What was the reason for that? The reason was to ensure that, within each community there would be agreement that what was being advanced by both was a basis for ongoing business. The Ulster Unionists have a very, very narrow majority with 28Members plus the assistance of those who have demonstrated themselves to be consistent allies, the Progressive Unionist Party, giving them a total of 30.
On the other hand, opposed to the views of the Ulster Unionist grouping are the Democratic Unionist Party, the United Kingdom Unionist Party and the three Independents, making 28 in number. What is proposed now is to allow the two members of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition to hop about from a Nationalist designation to a Unionist designation, on seven days’ notice, which would give them a degree of influence entirely out of proportion to the votes they got throughout Northern Ireland.
I have no argument whatever with the advancement of the rights of women, though I find a political party calling itself the Women’s Coalition a rather curious phenomenon, but that is another matter.
But the point I do make is that the Women’s Coalition originally entered the negotiations on the basis of what many people saw as a completely anti-democratic arrangement. Under the top-up system 20 seats were divided among the top 10 parties thus allowing the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition to have two seats when its total vote in NorthernIreland was a little over 6,000. Now we have those two Members with limited electoral support endeavouring to do something which is fundamentally opposed to the principle of consensus upon which the agreement is based: they want to play see-saw Marjorie daw by changing their designation from "Nationalist" to "Unionist" when any crucial vote is about to come up.
In those circumstances the proposal put forward by the Assembly Member for South Belfast (MsMcWilliams) is one that would strike at the very roots of democratic consensus in the Assembly, and NigelDodds, the Assembly Member for North Belfast, has shown us the dangers of that very clearly.
I now want to turn to the remarks made by MrClose on the matter of designation. The agreement provides for three designations — Nationalist, Unionist and Others, and in that context "other" was not being used in some derogatory way. Those who are neither Nationalist nor Unionist are "other" and the Alliance Party has demonstrated that it does not wish to be associated with any particular grouping, Nationalist or Unionist.
It is entirely irrelevant whether it is designated "centre" or "other" because it is certainly not Nationalist or Unionist, neither of whom, even allowing for the degree of ecumenism that occasionally creeps into both parties, could conceivably be described as centre. Whether you say left or right, Nationalist or Unionist, none of those terms of themselves in itself designates a person as an extremist of one form or another.
It is my proposal that those who are neither Nationalist nor Unionist can describe themselves in whatever way they like, but they ought not be permitted to change more than once. There is good sense and fairness in allowing people to decide that, broadly speaking, their party is now convinced that the Unionist or Nationalist ideology and goals are what it should opt for, but such people should be permitted to do that only once in a four-year term.
I commend to the House the sentiments expressed both by MrDodds and by MrClose.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The fears which were raised both by MrDodds and MrClose on the matter of changing designation have been borne out by the comments by MsMcWilliams. Under the guise of protecting the agreement, she has suggested that the Women’s Coalition’s intention is its designation as "other" so that sometimes it can be Unionist and sometimes it can be Nationalist, not on the basis of any political principle, but purely to influence a vote. I have no trouble with the words of one member of the Women’s Coalition who said
"The Women’s Coalition wished to be all things to all men."
I think that that was rather inappropriate, but to try to influence a vote in either community, to change and dance around, purely for that purpose, is wrong.
As MrClose said, it would bring the Assembly into disrepute in the eyes of the general public, if someone was able to dance about like that, under the guise of protecting the agreement, while really seeking to subvert the views of those who have expressed themselves as either Unionist or Nationalist. The Rule must be amended, and I hope that Members will accept that a small group cannot be allowed to manipulate the Assembly in this way.
I am glad to see that the Committee had the good sense to agree that any proposal brought before the Assembly by the First Minister (Designate) or the Deputy First Minister (Designate) should be open to amendment. We do not want to have to accept it or reflect it simply.
One of the things said in defence of the agreement, especially by members of the Ulster Unionist Party, was that it would end the bad old days of Orders in Council in the House of Commons, that people would now be able to amend proposals that were brought forward. We cannot have that re-imposed on the Assembly. We must be able, when there are parts of a proposal brought before the Assembly that people do not like, to amend the proposal rather than have to vote the whole thing down.
I find it rather bizarre that those who defended that kind of undemocratic means of doing business were telling us that we did not need to worry, because the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) would take the opinions of the Assembly into account and consult their own parties.
From the record of the First Minister (Designate) over the last number of months, it appears that he cannot even take account of opinion in his own party, let alone the Assembly. Therefore, it is important that we are able to amend reports that are brought forward, rather than simply vote on them. I hope that the Assembly will have the good sense to agree this and that the Secretary of State will have the good sense to accept the amendment as proposed by MrMcCartney.

Mr Norman Boyd: I want to endorse the comments of MrMcCartney and MrWilson. This is a totally undemocratic Standing Order. For Members to be able to change a designation within seven days and then change it back would make us a laughing stock. I would support a proposal that a designation be changed once only — that would cover everybody and exclude no-one.
I take exception to MsMcWilliams implying that the United Kingdom Unionist Party is exclusively Unionist. It is important to clarify that the political affiliation of someone who comes to us on a constituency matter is not an issue.

Ms Jane Morrice: I would like to clear up the reference to me that was made by MrSWilson — the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition is all things to all men and women and children.
Change of designation has been discussed. It is very interesting to note those who accuse the Women’s Coalition of possibly bringing the Assembly or the Agreement into disrepute. I am very happy to see that they are here to defend this institution, and I commend that. There is absolutely no question of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition’s bringing the agreement or the House into disrepute.
Any move to change our designation would be made purely in defence of the agreement. As MsMcWilliams said, we have been put here to defend the agreement, and we will do so. We come from pockets of Unionism, Nationalism and "other", and we represent all three.
One very important thing that this Assembly must take on board is the ability to evolve. We do not want to get stuck in a mould. We want to be able to evolve towards a future that we can all support and work with. If we insist that there can be no change of designation, we are insisting that we stay in the mould that we have prescribed for ourselves from the start. I believe that the people who elected us would like to see us all evolve to the point where we can accept Unionism, Nationalism and "other" and move forward.

Mr Denis Haughey: I thank Members for their contributions to a lively and interesting debate. There are one or two matters to which I ought to refer.
First of all, it is important to remember there is a distinction between the redraft of the Standing Orders which the Standing Orders Committee is considering and the additional Standing Orders which are being put forward by the Secretary of State to supplement the Initial Standing Orders. Under the legislation she has the authority to do so. The Standing Orders Committee was asked to comment on them; we have done that, and Members have a copy of our comments. That is a different issue from the redraft of the Standing Orders which will be adopted by the Assembly when it assumes full authority under the legislation.
I presume that there will be a full debate on the final Report of the Standing Orders Committee when it comes before the Assembly and that Members will then be able to go into detail on the various provisions of the Standing Orders.
It is also important to understand that the legislation currently going through the House of Commons will enshrine in law the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, and may not depart from that agreement. It would be invidious and quite unacceptable if the elaboration of the Standing Orders of this Assembly were allowed in any way to unravel parts of that agreement or to revise provisions which are clearly part of the agreement which was endorsed by sufficient consensus of the parties in the talks and by the overwhelming majority of the electorate, North and South.
There is further work to be done in relation to the question of designation and party, which, I remind Members, are two quite separate questions.
The question of designation is addressed in the preliminary Standing Orders as laid down by the Secretary of State; however, our response to the Secretary of State’s draft additional Standing Orders says
"it was agreed that the Secretary of State should be asked to give consideration to the need to define the meaning of ‘political party’."
That is something which will arise in respect of both the Standing Orders under the Secretary of State’s authority for the shadow period and the final Standing Orders of the Assembly itself.
The Standing Orders Committee has given some attention to the question of party and designation. While one can respect MrClose’s suggestion the fact is that applying the term "centre" to one party does have implications, as pointed out succinctly by MsMcWilliams, for other parties.
The situation with regard to the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition is somewhat different. The very name of the party indicates that it is a coalition of people with different designations and that they also need to be given some regard.
Finally, may I thank Members for their contribution to the debate.

Lord Alderdice: As Initial Standing Order 12(2)(b) applies to this motion — any motion referring to Standing Orders requires cross community support — I must call for a recorded vote. This requires that an announcement be made that a vote will take place in three minutes. It will take place on the basis of roll call, because that is the arrangement under the Initial Standing Orders.

Sir Reg Empey: Is it necessary to do that unless you have established first that there is a difference of opinion?

Lord Alderdice: The initial Standing Orders give me very little flexibility on a whole range of issues. For example, with regard to the length of time Members should speak, there is a very strong case for some flexibility. The problem is it indicates use of this procedure in any decision concerning the Standing Orders of the Assembly, even in the case of an interim report which makes no recommendations. From my point of view it is not a very satisfactory position that there is so little flexibility in the interpretation of these Rules. I expect this is something that the Standing Orders Committee will wish to consider.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I would have thought that where there is no division it was quite evident that there is cross-community support. MrEmpey’s point is a good one.

Dr Sean Farren: What are we voting on? We are noting a report. If there were a negative vote would we be saying that we do not adopt this report and that the Standing Orders Committee has to go back and start its work all over again?

Lord Alderdice: It is not for me to make an interpretation of the meaning of the House’s vote but merely to try to conduct it. If there were unanimity then it would be clear that there was cross-community support. That is not the same as saying there was no one against it. There could be Members who were for the motion and other Members who merely abstained — for example, if all Members on the Unionist side voted for and all Members on the Nationalist side were simply to abstain, there would not be cross-community support. If, however, there is unanimity of the House then I would certainly accept that there would be no need for a recorded vote.
In that context, if you will permit me to take a vote — a kind of straw poll — and to judge from that whether we have effective unanimity and therefore not proceed to recorded vote, I am very content to do so. Is that the mind of the House?
Members indicated assent.
The motion was carried without Division, the Initial Presiding Officer recording his judgement that the cross-community requirement set out in Initial Standing Order 12(2)(b) had been met through the complete unanimity of the Assembly expressed in response to the Question being put.
Resolved:
That the Assembly takes note of the interim report prepared by the Committee on Standing Orders and grants leave for the preparation and presentation of a full report by 26October 1998.

Lord Alderdice: The next item on the Order Paper is the motion that the Assembly takes note of the report from the FirstMinister (Designate) and the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate). Members should note that, with agreement through the usual channels, it has been decided that this debate should be limited to three hours. I intend to suspend the sitting for about an hour and a half at approximately 1o’clock for the purposes of taking lunch. Members may wish to take that into account. They may also like to know that the report will be presented.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Mr Presiding Officer, you said that the debate is to last for three hours. If we were to do what you suggest we would be splitting the debate into half an hour before the break and then two and a half hours. I suggest that we suspend the sitting now and reconvene at an appropriate time.

Lord Alderdice: I am a little concerned about your eagerness to leave the business, but I am happy to accommodate the request. However, staff in the refreshment areas were advised that we were likely to be proceeding until 1o’clock, or shortly after, and that the break would be for about an hour and a half, so you may find that they are not entirely ready. If that is the case I ask you to be considerate and not reprove them.

Mr Peter Robinson: Whilst the staff are heating the soup up, can you tell us how you intend to proceed, MrPresiding Officer? I understand that the FirstMinister (Designate) is to speak first. Can we assume that the Deputy First Minister (Designate) will wind up the debate rather than speak second?

Lord Alderdice: There has been consultation about this. Normally the person proposing a motion is allowed to speak for 20minutes. It has, however, been agreed that the time will be divided between the FirstMinister (Designate) and the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate). The First Minister (Designate) will speak first but only for 10 minutes, and the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate) will speak second for the balance of the 20 minutes.
I will then take interventions from all the parties. Each intervention will be for a maximum of 10minutes, and I willproceed through party order on the basis of size — assuming that I get names from all the parties which I have not as yet. We will take one run through on that basis. I will try to divide up the balance of the time in proportion to the size of the parties and considering the request for speaking rights as some parties will have submitted very extensive requests, others more limited. I will try to achieve the best balance that I can. There may or may not be any wind-up speeches, but if there is no desire to wind-up, other Members will be allowed to speak in any time remaining.
I trust that is clear, but if it is not I will try to explain it further.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Presiding Officer, what time do you intend to adjourn the House tonight?

Lord Alderdice: The intention is to suspend the sitting by 6o’clock. The Adjournment debate must last three hours. If this afternoon’s debate proceeds for the full three hours — if Members wish to use all of the time — clearly it would not be possible to accommodate the whole of the Adjournment debate. It might have been possible had we been quicker this morning, but that is not so now.
We will need to clarify over the suspension whether Members wish to proceed with the Adjournment debate this afternoon or whether we should suspend the sitting when we have completed the three-hour debate on the First and Deputy First Minister’s Report and reconvene tomorrow morning at 10.30 am.
The sitting was suspended at 12.40 pm.

Interim Report of First Minister (Designate) and Deputy

On resuming—

Lord Alderdice: This debate should be limited to a period of three hours, and I would ask Members who wish to speak to indicate that to me as soon as possible.
The report will be introduced by the FirstMinister and the Deputy First Minister.
Motion made:
That this Assembly takes note of the report prepared by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) and grants leave for the preparation and presentation of such further reports by the two Ministers as are considered necessary. — [The First Minister (Designate), the Deputy First Minister (Designate)]

Rt Hon David Trimble: When we last met in July, I spoke of how our community was coming out of a morass of political violence and political impotence, and I cautioned then that coming out of that morass would not be a simple process. However, none of us could have envisaged the carnage and the evil that would be perpetrated against our community in the weeks that followed.
As we meet today in this splendidly refurbished Chamber our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, those who have been maimed or injured and whose faith in humanity, let alone democracy, has been profoundly tested. To the Quinn family in Ballymoney, the Kearney family in Belfast, the families of those whose lives were so cruelly ended in MarketStreet, Omagh, to those injured there and in Banbridge, to the traders of both towns, and to the family of the RUC officer, so grievously injured in Portadown, I convey, on behalf of all Members, our deepest condolences and sympathetic concern.
Our thoughts are also with those who so admirably served this community during some of our darkest hours this summer. To the emergency services — the doctors and the nurses in all our hospitals, the members of the RoyalUlster Constabulary — and to the countless volunteers who sought to help in whatever way possible, we express our deepest admiration and gratitude.
The evil deeds that manifest the depravity of the few bring out the best in the many. There is an inner decency in the community which is the cornerstone of the whole democratic process. Thirty years of sectarianism, including the most brutal acts of violence, have failed to extinguish the light of democracy. There can be only one response which reflects the revulsion felt by everyone throughout this island to the Omagh atrocity — there can be no place for violence in the achievement of political goals.
MrInitialPresiding Officer, I also wish to thank you and all who have worked so hard to prepare this building for our use, including the Chamber in which we are sitting today. It is a tribute to their efforts and a mark of how much they have achieved.
Today we are presenting our preliminary report on those matters with which we were charged on 1July. All of us are embarking on one of the most novel and challenging journeys in the annals of our democratic system. It gives us a historic opportunity to govern with honour and to create a NorthernIreland at peace with itself.
We have a unique opportunity to develop our own Assembly within a rapidly changing UnitedKingdom and in a structured relationship with the Republic of Ireland. We must have the confidence to grasp this challenge, to create jobs, foster economic prosperity, tackle divisions, and improve the quality of life for all. Our community deserves the best possible form of government that we can create.
In the near future we will be collectively accountable for the stewardship of the bulk of the £9billion budget currently assigned to the NorthernIrelandOffice. When powers are transferred we will have direct responsibility for education, economic development, health, housing, transport, the environment and a host of other functions. We will have the power to pass legislation relating to those devolved matters. We will have the power to address the democratic deficit of which quangos are an obvious symptom, to create the circumstances within which local government can flourish and to work in partnership with the business, tradeunion and voluntary sectors. We will be able to set new standards in public administration, and provide leadership that will exploit the innate talents and abilities of our people.
I envisage the Assembly as a potentially powerful force for creating, sustaining and strengthening our sense of community and the sense of responsibilities that we have for each other; for formulating and implementing a programme of government that makes a real difference to people’s lives. To do this we must set ourselves a clear goal of delivering effective, efficient and quality services to all our citizens, and we must ensure that we command their confidence and respect. As we begin this debate on the various governmental and institutional arrangements stemming from the Agreement, I hope that we can put the needs of people first. To do so we need a strategic, co-ordinated and integrated approach to government.
I want to thank those who attended our initial consultation meetings last week. I look forward to receiving their written submissions, elaborating on the matters mentioned in those consultations and also containing their views on those matters that we simply did not have time to discuss.
I am very conscious of the limited timescale, not just for last week’s consultation but for the timescale within which we have to operate if we are to successfully negotiate this transition. The Bill to implement the agreement goes back to Parliament in October. The Government hope that it will receive the Royal Assent in mid-November.
If there are to be any changes in the number of Departments in the Northern Ireland Public Service then an Order in Council must be made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 although in principle that is something we are not comfortable with. But, given the timescale and the need for urgency, that is the only realistic way to do it. The Order in Council will have to start its parliamentary procedures by the end of November if we are to have any hope of achieving the transfer of functions in February.
We must also remember that the creation of a new Department could take up to three months to implement. So, if we are to maintain the schedule we must conclude the work on our initial view of the Administration’s structure by the beginning of November at the latest.
Any restructuring of government should be driven by the needs of the public and should reflect the policy concerns of the new Administration. In view of the time and cost penalties involved, I am sure that none of us should want to create new Departments just for the sake of it.
By evolving the policy concerns of the new Administration this also has problems. There are a number of major policy reviews which have already been put in train by the Northern Ireland Office — for example, reviews of health, environment and economic matters.
There is also the question of the NorthernIreland budget. The Northern Ireland Office will soon consult with the Assembly about the additional moneys made available to Northern Ireland as a result of the Government’s own comprehensive spending review. Although the amount of that additional money itself reflects policy decisions taken by the Government in that review, when the Northern Ireland Office settles the Northern Ireland Budget — which it must do in the course of the next few months — it will be taking decisions that will definitively settle the detailed expenditure in the next financial year and also, to a considerable extent settle the expenditure for the subsequent two years.
These are the first three years in which the Assembly will be conducting the Administration, yet there is an expectation by the public that the new Assembly andthe new Administration will make a difference, — and we will want to make a difference. Rather than implementing cosmetic policy changes in the first year we might do worse than follow the example of the present Labour Government by initiating, on a tight six to nine-month timescale, our own comprehensive spending review and our own comprehensive policy review. We would then be taking decisions which we can implement in subsequent years.
Of course, any comprehensive spending or policy review may have structural consequences and so whatever conclusions we arrive at initially in terms of structures may have to be reviewed at a later stage.
There is a more inflexible timescale with regard to the North/South Ministerial Council. Under the terms of the agreement the Assembly is set the target of agreeing on certain areas of co-operation by 31October.
The Northern Ireland Office is planning a major investment tour in the United States in October and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) and I have been invited to take part from 7 to 18 October 1998. If the Assembly is to achieve the timescale set out in the agreement, there will have to be an inaugural meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council towards the end of September or in the first few days of October. I am further of the view that substantial business will have to be transacted at that meeting. Indeed, I hope it will be possible to sign off on some proposals for co-operation at that stage.
This, in turn, would require the Assembly to give authority, perhaps within a fortnight from now. There is, therefore, a grave urgency about looking at areas for co-operation in the hope of making considerable progress within the timescale. During our discussions there seemed to be considerable confusion among other parties about the provisions in the agreement for the transitional period. Colleagues seem only to be looking at those provisions on the North/South Ministerial Council that will apply only after the transitional period.
I refer all Members to paragraph 8 of the relevant section of the agreement which makes it clear that there is adequate authority for what we are proposing to do. The Deputy First Minister and I will consider what is put forward in this debate. We may consult further with the parties, and we will bring forward further proposals as quickly as we can.
Whatever decisions we take, we are now in the fortunate position of struggling with democratic, institutional arrangements rather than with the politics of the latest atrocity. I want, as I have said, this to be a pluralist Parliament for a pluralist people in a Northern Ireland in which Unionists and Nationalists work together for the benefit of everyone.
I have welcomed the moves made by those who are crossing the bridge from terrorism to democracy. However, as in all partnerships, the opportunity to implement the agreement in its entirety is predicated on trust and equality. There can be neither trust nor equality if any party to the agreement is not prepared to destroy its weapons of war. Everyone here should rely on votes and not on weaponry. I hope that those previously engaged in violence will now embrace peace with a new vigour.
I am determined to make the agreement work. However, I simply cannot reconcile the seeking of positions in Government with a failure to discharge responsibilities, under the agreement, to dismantle terrorist organisations. The agreement cannot work unless it all works. In presenting this report, I am noting the work completed so far in implementing part of the agreement. We, and the Ulster Unionist Party, will continue doing what is needed to make the agreement work. Let us all do what we all need to do to make all of the agreement work. [Interruption]

Lord Alderdice: I would remind everyone that it is a discourtesy to Members to allow mobile phones or pagers to go off in any part of the Chamber, and what applies to Members most emphatically applies also to those in the Galleries and elsewhere.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I would like to associate myself fully with the remarks made by the First Minister about those who suffered needlessly during the summer months. It was a very difficult time, especially for the First Minister and me. It was a cruel summer. However, I believe that we have got several things out of that period which can be shared by everyone in this Chamber.
There is a greater sense of hope for the future and a deeper sense of belief that what we have to do here is create something absolutely new, something very different and something which is at odds with the violence and the brutality that we saw then. That is a challenge that the Assembly must accept, a challenge which we have taken on ourselves and is a challenge that we must work to meet.
It is a more difficult challenge, because communities that maintain conflict have no problem with understanding. An eye-for-an-eye culture does not demand any great comprehension. For a community to overcome conflict is much more complex. Respect and trust are not built in an instant.
Equality, while it does need laws and constitutions to protect it against abuse, is not built in any Parliament or by any legislation. It is built on the streets and involves dismantling past barriers, promoting tolerance and developing understanding and above all creating space for everyone of us to be inclusive of the other.
We have a very substantial institutional challenge here. For years we decried direct rule. We talked about democratic deficits. We criticised those who made decisions. At times we were right — probably most time we were right — but now we do not have any escape hatch. There are no bolt-holes. It is for us now to assume the responsibility of making those decisions. We have to move from criticism to construction, from making demands to making choices, from claiming rights to taking responsibilities for our own lives. We have to decide how in this Assembly we create not just those institutions but the attitudes of minds in the community which will underpin those institutions and make them work to their maximum advantage.
A new politics has begun. It is time for responsibility and commitment, a time for service to people— to those who elected us, to those who resolve to make this agreement work and to those who themselves have not yet resolved to do so. We in the Assembly have to make sure that we do it in a way that is people-orientated. We have to harness all the advantages we have here, and we have to deal with the disadvantages that we have facing all of us.
When the First Minister (Designate) and I met with parties, certain things struck both of us. We saw strengths and capabilities in the parties, a very constructive impatience to resume responsibility, real concern about what was happening in the community and an understanding of the socio-economic problems that all of us have to face. There was a unique connectedness between the political parties and those who elected them here — probably, in a sense, more immediate and potentially more dynamic than one would find in most other countries.
Our discussions and consultations centred mainly on the creation of Departments, not exclusively but primarily, because it was the first item on the agenda. Many parties gave very differing views, but there were factors that were shared. One was the absolute need to create Departments that were effective of themselves and could make the maximum contribution to the administrative life here and which could deal with those issues which interlock and transcend Departments. Some of them spring readily to mind — for example, how we handle European matters, how we handle the equality agenda, and how we deal with some issues that run through Departments and are the responsibility of all.
There was almost the unique agreement that we did not want any Departmental silos, that we could not have a situation, where there were six, seven, eight, nine or 10 floating Ministries acting independently, that there had to be a collective view that in any Executive formed would be dealing with one budget, with one governmental approach, and that there could be no luxuries of sitting outside of that.
We also had deep discussions about the North/South Ministerial Council. As one would be aware there were different emphases and different attitudes in relation to that. But again there was this common strand: what we decide upon after further consultation will be that which is of mutual benefit to the people in Ireland, North and South.
We will not be building ivory towers just to keep Nationalism happy, but something meaningful in terms of the economic, social and cultural life of all of this island. That view also extended into the British/Irish Council, which gives us all a unique opportunity to explore and develop the totality of relationships between these islands, a cliché that has been used for years we now have an opportunity to turn into a political reality.
Some of those areas for consideration are self evident. Transport for an island country such as ours must be one. The currency, common or otherwise, through which our industry will deal, must surely be something that will interest the North/South Council.
The final area that we were charged to consult about and report back on was the creation of a consultative Forum. I am pleased at the remarkable interest there has been in that body. That is not just something typed in the agreement. Given the amount of interest that we have seen, it is something that is organic, and it must be organic, organic in the sense that while it relates to the Assembly uniquely, above that it relates to the community that the Assembly serves, equally uniquely.
The Forum must not be a resting place for those on the way down, or for those on the way up, as such bodies sometimes are. It should not be a place for the great and the good in society who almost seek to have an automatic interest in bodies like these. It will be the success that we can make it when we see people from every walk of life, from every political view and from every social and economic class in that body contributing with us to a resolution of the many problems that we have.
We look forward to further consultation — more in depth and more decisive consultation — and we will do that with speed. And the consultation should be in the same spirit as this consultation took place. We must show that all Members of the Chamber do take seriously what we have said for years about the contribution that local politics in the North of Ireland should make to our lives.
I finish on this note. There are many divergent people with many divergent views in this Chamber. It will be the strength of that diversity that will actually be a creative, moving force in the working of the Assembly, its Executive and the North/South Ministerial Council, and in relation to the British/Irish Council as well. It will be the motive fulcrum that will allow people on the ground to look at this place and say "Ah they are serious. There is a new politic — not a politic of bickering; not a politic of sectarianism; not a politic of one doing the other down and getting the better of every argument and every decision, but a new politic." And that new politic will be absolutely impotent unless it can harness the involvement, the creativity and the imagination of everyone here.
The First Minister (Designate) and I look forward to that challenge. We can fulfil that challenge only if we all do it together, and together, we can succeed if we do it for the people who need it most — the people whom we represent, living across the length and breadth of Northern Ireland.

Sir Reg Empey: All of us welcome the opportunity of turning our minds to the task at hand of establishing the right structures for the future Administration of Northern Ireland. Many Members may not be aware that the Civil Service is currently going through one of the largest changes in its history. It is having to completely change its accounting procedures to create a balance sheet for the activities which it performs on a department to department basis; administratively, this is time-consuming and is imposing colossal strains on the Service.
There have been various hints in the press as to how many departments there will be. Will there be six, 10, 15? All sorts of numbers have been quoted.
In addition there are somewhere between 111 and 145 quangos — I do not know the exact number, but it is certainly large. Some of them are spending colossal sums of money; they are very large administrations in their own right, and it would be wrong if this Assembly were to simply create an additional administrative tier. Whatever we are facing, we face enormous change.
I am strongly of the view that we must not rush helter-skelter into creating new Departments without fully appreciating the implications. Neither can we allow the system to carry on as it is; we cannot allow ourselves to be suffocated by one review after another. If we decide to increase the number of departments or create new ones out of existing ones, the truth is that we will be spending large amounts of money in perpetuity.
If, say, it costs between £500,000 and £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 to set up a new Department from scratch, that is money which will come out of the Northern Ireland budget every year — not a one-off piece of expenditure. We have got to translate that into schools, hospitals and roads that will not be built, into economic development and initiatives that will not be taken.
Unless we are making compensatory savings in other areas of the administration, all we are doing is increasing the burden of government on the community, and that is not what I believe we are here to do.
I have been equally concerned at the arbitrary way in which some people have said "Oh, we will just have 10" or "we arrived at this figure on a ‘snouts in the trough’ basis" or "There is a mention of up to 10 in the agreement". The question is: what is needed? What is appropriate? What is right at this point in time? And we also have to be aware that we are being asked to do, in a few weeks, what our colleagues in Scotland and Wales are being allowed to take years to do. A tremendous burden is being imposed upon us and I for one do not wish to see us go ram-stam into something purely to make up the numbers.
We have also got to get away from this idea that if you have a Minister you must have a Department — that is not necessarily the case. It is perfectly conceivable to have Ministers who do not have Departments, who have cross-departmental responsibility, who could, for instance, have responsibility for piloting legislation. There is a range of things that we must look at.
With regard to other parts of the structure — be they the North/South Ministerial Council, the British/Irish Council, and so on — we are getting very positive indications from Scotland and Wales of a willingness to do business with the NorthernIreland Assembly. There have been communications from political representatives over there who are anxious to engage with us, and some of them have even given us ideas as to what issues we might pursue. That is also the case with the North/South Ministerial Council.
We have to see this within the context of the European Union and growing regionalisation. If we had not opted for devolution in this province, we would have been left out of the major constitutional change that is taking place in the rest of the United Kingdom, change which is not confined to Scotland and Wales — London is shortly to get its own Government.
I heard on the radio at the weekend that representatives of the North-East of England have already formed themselves into groups. The North-West is doing the same. The South-West, at local government level, has an embryonic structure in place. There is this pattern of devolving powers because the United Kingdom and, indeed, the Republic of Ireland are the two most centralised states in the European Union, and that situation is not sustainable in the long term.
Equally I am very pleased that we have decided today to appoint an adhoc Committee to look into our relationship with the House of Commons. There are major issues there which go back, as MrRobinson mentioned, to the "WestLothian" question, and that touches on very sensitive constitutional issues.
We should not be a stand-alone instrument here. The House of Commons has power under the Act to make laws for the whole of the United Kingdom, so we will still have to look very closely at the relationship that exists between ourselves and Westminster.
We have complained about quangos year in and year out for decades, and the future of some of the larger ones will have to be examined very closely. What is the future for bodies like the health boards, the Health and Social Services Council and the education boards? We had prolonged debate in the last couple of years about the education boards, many people wanting to retain the existing number. But is it conceivable that we would have an Assembly and a legislature here, yet retain those bodies? I think not.
We run the risk of sending the administration of this province into turmoil and placing question marks over everything. I fear that it is not going to be possible to make an omelette without breaking some eggs. I also suggest that people who are working for those bodies, people who are sitting on those bodies, will have to realise that major change is going to take place.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Perhaps MrEmpey will give the Assembly his opinion on the chances of an Executive being formed. At a meeting with the Security Minister here on 6August1998 he said that as things stood then the Ulster Unionist Party would not have endorsed the agreement and no Executive could have been formed. Other members of his party insisted that the voters were wavering and that there was a real risk of civil war. What exactly is he saying today?

Sir Reg Empey: I do not quite see the relevance of that intervention, but I will give the Member an answer if he wishes.
Unlike his party’s position, which as enunciated at the weekend, is that it is prepared to take seats in Government irrespective of whether there is decommissioning or not, the Ulster Unionist Party’s position is that it is not prepared to do that.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is it right for a Member of this House to make a statement that has no foundation in fact?

Lord Alderdice: I fear that there may be many such statements made over the next period and I will have difficulty ruling them all out of order.

Sir Reg Empey: The difference between DrPaisley’s party and the Ulster Unionist Party is that he enunciated at the weekend that the Democratic Unionist Party is prepared to take its seats in the Government without a qualification that decommissioning must be involved; that is the difference between the two parties.
I wish to return to the question of Departments.

Lord Alderdice: We are coming near to the end of the time allocated.

Sir Reg Empey: I hope you will allow me time for the interventions.
We wish to ensure maximum cost-benefit and effectiveness in any changes we make. We must therefore be sure that they are based on solid judgements; that there is a strategy behind what we do; and that that strategy flows into policy. Therefore we will have to review policy and realise that there is a relationship between policy and structure. It is always easy to keep the system that already exists.
While I have no desire to change out of all recognition what has been an effective system, we nevertheless have to make it more responsive. Any changes will have to be made as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible because if we spend money on administration we remove money from public services.

Lord Alderdice: MrEmpey asked whether further time will be allowed in respect of interventions. I must advise that no further time will be made available. I hope this will not discourage Members from permitting interventions, but if they permit extensive interventions the whole proceedings are disrupted. I have to rule that interventions are time lost from a speech, although interventions may, of course, contribute to it.

Rt Hon David Trimble: On a point of order. When a Member gives way he has no way of knowing whether it is going to be a long or short intervention. If interventions look as though they are going to be lengthy it would be helpful if the Chair ensured that they are curtailed.

Lord Alderdice: That is a very valid point. I trust that Members will be co-operative and that I will be forgiven for intervening and maintaining a degree of order in such circumstances.

Mr John Hume: I begin by expressing my deep appreciation to the First Minister (Designate) and his Deputy, not only for the detailed work they have done since taking office but for the Interim Report which they have placed before us. Their work and the Report represent the challenge of a new beginning and the leaving behind of a terrible past.
This new beginning challenges us to put into operation new democratic institutions. These will be shared institutions allowing both sections of the community to work together on common interests, bringing government much closer to the people. People are the only wealth we have, for without them any piece of earth is only a jungle. Therefore it is right and proper that government and the decision-making process should be as close to the people as possible. It is our duty in the Assembly to do everything we can to ensure that that happens as soon as possible.
We should also be deciding as soon as possible what Government Departments we are going to have. There are six at present, but there are differences of opinion among parties about how many Departments and Ministerial portfolios there should be. Decisions also need to be taken about a civic forum and the proposals for areas of co-operation under the North/South body and the British/Irish Council. I would therefore appeal to all parties, in consultation with the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate), to reach agreement in those areas as soon as possible so that this institution can get down to the serious work of government.
If we do not get down to that work, this Assembly will become — and we can see it happening already — not just a talking shop about our past, but a "shouting shop" about our past. We want to leave that past behind us, because we all know the terrible price that all sections of our people have paid for that past.
The challenge before us now is to create the new beginning, to implement the agreement that the people have so overwhelmingly endorsed and to implement it in all its detail, which means creating the democratic institutions to allow all sections of our people to work together with respect for one another, and to build a completely new society.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: There is a great weakness in this discussion today. When my party met the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), we found that they were divided on the question of the Executive. At the first meeting of the Assembly, I said that we were perfectly clear in our minds about the position of the Deputy First Minister (Designate); he had made his position crystal clear. We are not clear about the position of the First Minister (Designate), and in our discussions it was quite clear that there was a difference between these two gentlemen.
If I understand anything about this agreement, it is that it is based on a partnership between these two gentlemen, in which they have a common purpose, a common task and a common objective. But how can they have that when they are not in agreement?
Representatives of the Official Unionist Party ask, inside and outside this House, what my party is going to do. That does not matter. They have taken the position of First Minister (Designate), and they have a responsibility now to tell the House what their attitude is to these questions. Are they prepared to sit down with IRA/Sinn Fein in a Government of Northern Ireland? What about decommissioning and what about the release of prisoners? They must make their position clear on all these matters.
What we have had today is not consultation because they have not told us what they intend to do. In any parliamentary consultation process there is a Green Paper and then a White Paper. A Green Paper sets out the alternatives, and then a White Paper indicates the mind of the Government. These two gentlemen owe it to the Assembly to set out their position clearly and in writing.
We have heard Mr Empey speculating about the number of Departments we should have, but we cannot have real consultation until the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) tell us what they propose. The first step in consultation is for them to say "These are the alternatives. We are choosing this alternative, and we want to know your attitude to it." What have they in mind in setting up this Executive?
I would like to know whether the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) believe that they can form the strand of a North/South Council when no Executive is in place? The Assembly needs to know.
I see the First Minister raising his copy of this agreement. I know what it says. It says that they can lead it, but it does not say that they can make it. Of course, he would say that he and the Deputy First Minister are going to make up the North/South Council, and then there will be a very cosy relationship with MrAhern and his colleagues — very cosy indeed.
However, there are some Members in this House who want to have some say about what is happening with regard to cosy relationships with the Irish Republic. I ask the First Minister (Designate) to come clean on that. We want to know what is in his mind and that of the Deputy First Minister (Designate) as to what they intend to do about this and what are they going to do about the Unionist Party’s attitude to these things which is on record in the reply to the Member for East Belfast.
The all-important question is: when is this Assembly going to have a piece of paper from the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) saying "this is the way we think the Assembly should go"? We heard a suggestion from the First Minister (Designate) that he would like us to write to him and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) with proposals. But the point is that they know the views of those they have talked to about many of these things. Now they have to make up their minds and declare their intent.
There are many other matters of concern — for instance, the Civic Forum. In the House of Commons I said that it was going to be the great monster quango. I notice that the voluntary bodies do not want any elected person to have any say in it. Because they cannot get elected themselves, they feel that all elected Members should have no say. They talk about using the Senate Chamber so we will have a quasi House of Lords attached to this House. They are going to be the grand itinerants. They are going to go from county to county and from place to place.
We also had the suggestion in the House of Commons, in an amendment from the Social Democratic and Labour Party, that the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) should be the people to choose the members of this body and that the Assembly should have no say whatsoever in the matter. Any body should have the imprimatur of this House upon it. We are the elected representatives; we are the people that were sent here to represent the people.
We do not need this monster quango. We do not need another tier to this Assembly. This is the place where elected representatives should have their say and should make their wishes known. If people want to lobby this body, they can lobby it. If people want to make representation to this body, they can make it. However, to have an outside body with a wider remit than the Assembly is certainly not going to lead to good government in Northern Ireland.
These are the matters I believe this House should be considering and I look forward to the day when we get the piece of paper which outlines the direction in which the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) believe we should go.
The First Minister (Designate) has made a speech that has been strong in description, strong in the parliamentary diary, strong in what the Government need to do and strong in what we need to do. But we have not had one firm suggestion about the number of Departments he thinks we should have. Is he prepared to sit on an Executive with IRA/Sinn Fein? He has not answered that question, and those are matters that the Assembly needs to consider.
The sooner we come to the crux of this matter, the better for us all. Let us get it out in the open and see what the major differences are between the First Minister (Designate) and his deputy. Let us see what they are and if they are going to handle this matter in a parliamentary way, so that we will know — it will be written down — exactly what they are going to do.

Mr Gerry Adams: A Chathaoirligh, tá mé buíoch duitse. Lá an-tábhachtach atá sa lá seo. Tá sé tábhachtach mar tá seans againne ár stair nua a chur le chéile. Bhí samhradh millteanach againn. Mar sin, tá súil agamsa agus tá súil ag Sinn Féin go rachaidh muid ar aghaidh uaidh seo amach. Ar son Sinn Féin ba mhaith liom a rá go ndéanfaidh muid ár ndícheall an stair nua a chur le chéile.
It is very important that we see today as a chance to make new history. I noted Dr Paisley, the absentee, occasionally present Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party stressing in his submission that he wants to find out what the differences are between what the Deputy First Minister (Designate) and the First Minister (Designate) are saying. We who have vested interest in the future – Dr Paisley has a great future, and it is behind him — can make this work if we work together.
Now, what do we want to make work? The Good Friday Agreement is very clear. The Assembly cannot exist without all the other inter-dependent and inter-related institutions, whether it is the Executive, the all-Ireland body, the implementation bodies, the British/Irish Council or the policy making bodies. Therefore, when I thank the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) for the report, I have to say that they do need to expedite the content of it. The Good Friday Agreement is very clear about all these matters including the timetable. It is also very — and I am sure everyone here is conversant with it — clear about the issue of executive authority.
What Sinn Fein wants to see in place are real Departments — the present Departments clearly do not work. They are confusing and in many ways incoherent. We have made written submissions to the report which we received as the precursor of this report, and we will do so again. In terms of consultation it is important that we understand that the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) cannot forever represent the Assembly. All the parties present here have an automatic right to take their places in the Executive and from there in the Council of Ministers, and so on.
I had written a speech to be made two years ago at the point when our party was excluded from the negotiations and in it I was going to say
"I believe that Ian Paisley and David Trimble, with whom I have many disagreements but who care about their people, can with the rest of us do a much better job running our economy, looking after our Health Service, our elderly, our young, and our urban and rural communities. We do not need British Ministers. The people of this island have the right and the ability to govern ourselves."
As an Irish Republican I want to see a situation in which the five million people of this island can shape our futures, combat poverty and bring about a whole system of equality and justice.
I know that Unionists and Republicans have inflicted great hurt upon each other. I hear the catcalls from the other Bench, and the gap between us is not just the space of floor which is between us. I want to make friends with Dr Paisley and with those whom he represents. But unless we have a sense of doing this together, then not only will this, as Mr Hume said, be reduced to a shouting shop, but the people who depend on us to take us all out of 30years of division, the conflict of partition and all the other discriminations and injustices will be very sorely disappointed, and Sinn Fein does not intend to disappoint them.
Sin an méid. Beidh a lán eile le rá againn nuair a bheas an seans againn. I want to wish everyone here good luck. We have had a terrible summer. Many, many people have died. Many families have been bereaved and they and everyone else are depending on us to move the entire situation forward.

Mr Sean Neeson: I am very pleased to be back in this Chamber today, and I want to pay tribute to all those who were responsible for its restoration and reconstruction. I remember standing almost on this very spot, almost 16 years ago at the opening day of the 1982 Assembly, and the big difference between then and now is that in 1982 the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Fein, for their own reasons, had decided not to participate. But today all those who were elected to the Assembly are sitting here around the table to start a new Government, a new chance for the people of Northern Ireland. And I applaud that.
They say that life depends on the survival of thefittest. That is certainly the case in political life. From those heady days in 1982 I am pleasedtoseehere today MrTaylor, MrDavis, MrMcCartney, MrBell, MrPeterRobinson, DrPaisley, RevWilliamMcCrea, the young JimWells and last but not least MrClose. I am delighted that these people are still around to participate in the Assembly.
With regards to the numerical makeup of the new Shadow Executive and the development of the new Departments, Alliance is clearly committed to the establishment of 10 Departments, and I will tell you why later. But I am somewhat concerned by the motivation of some of the people who want only six or seven Departments. Is it for the effectiveness or the efficiency of the new Government in NorthernIreland, or is this another political motive aimed at reducing the numbers from other parties who get seats on the Executive? We in Alliance accept that we will not be getting a ministerial seat, but it would concern me if political agendas rather than the effective and efficient operation of the Assembly were to determine the number of Executive posts.
We see clear opportunities arising from the restructuring of Departments — for example, the Department of the Environment is much too large and there have been problems with public transport for instance. There are certainly arguments to be made in support of the suggestions contained in the annex circulated to us.
We also have the equality issue, which to me does not just mean religious equality. One of the concerns I expressed when the Equal Opportunities Commission was established, was that issues such as gender, disability or race would be overshadowed by the issue of religious equality. However, the establishment of a Department for Equality will give this Assembly the opportunity to ensure that there is true equality for all the people of Northern Ireland. I also see a role for the Community Relations Council in this.
The topic of heritage is a great personal interest of mine, and I would commend the proposals for a Department of Arts, Culture, Heritage and Sport. This could also consider the promotion of tourism in Northern Ireland.
The Alliance Party is currently consulting with other parties in the Assembly to see how the tenth Department could be established. We are strongly pro-Europe, and believe there is an opportunity, if junior Ministries are to be created, to appoint a junior Minister with responsibility for European issues. That person’s responsibilities might include the East/West institutions as well as the Northern Ireland Bureau in Washington. I see a need for someone to deal with those issues. Clearly, we need to move this process forward urgently and reach decisions.
Dr Paisley is right to say that there must be full consultation with all the Assembly parties when the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) are making their final decisions. I hope there will be a further meeting, given the shortness of the meeting we had the last time. There is certainly a need for further consultation.
It is important that the proposed Civic Forum truly reflects civil society in Northern Ireland, and not, as the Deputy First Minister (Designate) stated, just "the great and the good", whom many of us have seen posturing around on various platforms over the years.
Time is of the essence, and I hope that all the parties in the Assembly will assist the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to come to decisions quickly on these matters. Let us ensure that we meet the demands of our timetable.

Mr Robert McCartney: There has been much talk of democracy, particularly from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). They have given voice to lofty aspirations about peace, justice and equality. All democrats would share such aspirations. However, there has been a lack of consideration about the foundations upon which the Assembly will be built.
Ostensibly, we are here to discuss the "above-ground" structures — the Executive, the portfolios, the number of Ministers. But we should start by looking at the democratic foundations upon which these structures will be built, and, in a democracy those foundations cannot conceivably include those who are in any sense wedded to the principle that violence in the pursuit of political objectives can in some circumstances be justified.
That is the defining principle upon which the Assembly should consider erecting any structures.
It was noticeable that, while the FirstMinister (Designate) made what some might call "a hairy-chested" assertion that there could be no question of parties sitting down in an Executive with those who were associated with or intertwined with those possessing weapons, that topic was totally absent from the address of the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate).
The Assembly has also heard about the importance of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) discussing with their counterparts in the Republic — as part of the North/South Ministerial Council — the sort of all-Ireland implementation bodies that are to be created. However there has been no hint of what those implementation bodies will do.
Members have, of course, been told that, on the one hand, these bodies will be relatively "MickeyMouse" affairs, concerned with teacher training, animal husbandry, hygiene and, possibly, tourism. However, the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate) has more substantial powers in mind. In yesterday’s ‘SundayTribune’ he stated
"the significance of the North/South Ministerial Council is not symbolic; it is practical: its role will be to deliver real benefits for both parts of the island."
So far so good.
"There can be no real argument any more about the potential benefits of a one island approach across the spectrum of economic and social issues. It must benefit the people of NorthernIreland to be able to tap-in to, and to link up with, the most successful economy in Europe this decade".
That is a totally erroneous statement, and very soon the four legs — and possibly the tail as well — may come off the "Celtictiger". Be that as it may, that is an expression of opinion. It is clear that the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate) sees these bodies as being of real importance.
Once you have the economy and the social structures for delivering the social services of two countries completely intertwined and united, you have effectively a united country. That is the vision of the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate). It is not apparently the vision of the FirstMinister (Designate). These are anomalies that will have to be resolved.
But let us look at the timetable for this. I happen to share with the Leader of Sinn Fein the view that the first priority of the two Ministers, and of this Assembly, is to appoint an Executive. When that Executive is appointed — whether it comprises 10Ministers or sevenMinisters — those Ministers will have to be appointed in accordance with the d’Hondt principle.
Under the terms of this agreement, all parties that qualify under the d’Hondt principle will be entitled to take their seats, including Sinn Fein. In relation to decommissioning Sinn Fein is only required to do nothing more than use such influence as it may have with those organisations said to be associated with it and who are in possession of weapons.
It was upon that principle, among others, that I opposed the agreement. But that is the agreement, and there is much strength in the suggestion that the FirstMinister (Designate) is now attempting to shut the stable door after the horse has gone.
On democratic grounds Sinn Fein ought not to be entitled to take Executive positions in the Government while it remains inextricably linked with an organisation that refuses to decommission. But that is not what the agreement says. This is a fundamental issue which will have to be resolved. It suggests that the two Ministers will arrange some, if not all of the implementation bodies in the agreement.
We are not told what those implementation bodies will be decreed to do. However, the Assembly will have to give its consent to the Ministers plan, and Members will be told that unless they accept these implementation bodies, under the principle of mutuality this Assembly will fail and with it will go the blue carpet, the plush chairs, the emoluments, and the facilities. That will be the price for saying "no" to the implementation bodies proposed.
Those implementation bodies are being proposed out of chronological sequence as it appears on this document. The first item that the Ministers were charged to deal with was
"the basic structures including the agreement on the number of Ministerial posts, and the distribution of executive responsibilities between those posts".
Then there was
"the preparation for establishing the British/Irish Council and the North/South Ministerial Council, and associated implementation bodies".
Why are the roles being reversed? They are being reversed because the First Minister (Designate) does not believe that his party will sanction sitting down with Sinn Fein as joint members of an executive, while the IRA has not decommissioned any of its weapons. He believes that if he reverses the role, he may persuade his party to back him and give him authority to agree all-Ireland implementation bodies at the price of not losing their positions. Everyone who claims to be a democrat will have to think about his personal interest, emoluments, or facilities will be the price that will have to be paid for agreeing to do something which as a Unionist, regardless of his party, he ought not to do.
I would like to return to the question of being able to change designation. The issue was made clear by MsMorrice when she said that her party was charged with protecting the agreement. If a majority of Unionists vote for some matter that may cause the agreement to be put at issue, the Women’s Coalition Members are saying that they would become Unionists for the day in order to frustrate a true Unionist majority vote on that issue. In other words the agreement would be placed above the principles of democratic representation.
I believe that this Assembly will fail unless it is based on the solid foundation of democracy. I do not disagree with the entitlement of MrAdams, MrMcGuinness and all the other members of Sinn Fein to forcefully, politically and democratically, advance their ideal of a united socialist Irish Republic. What I fundamentally disagree with is that they should directly or tacitly or in a hidden way, be associated with the threat of violence, if this process does not deliver progress in that direction.
My remarks are equally applicable to any other party. I specifically mention the Progressive Unionist Party which is in a similar position in relation to an armed organisation. In regard to this matter my feelings towards them are exactly the same as my feelings towards Sinn Fein. Democracy must prevail, and there must be no particle of violence or the threat of violence of any kind in the basis upon which we erect the structures and institutions of government for NorthernIreland.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: When the Leader of the United Kingdom Unionist Party said that he agreed with MrAdams, members of the press left the Gallery — I think they wanted to get to a microphone but they should have waited until I spoke. They would have been shocked to hear that I happen to agree with MrMcCartney’s position that Sinn Fein has a legal right to get into the Executive without decommissioning.
What we need to concentrate on — [Interruption]
People should stop catcalling and let others speak. I did not catcall when other Members were speaking. The public are watching, and they will recognise the childish behaviour of some Members.
There has been a lot of talk about taking time to ensure that we do not make any mistakes. Before we had this Assembly, and even while we were moving to this building, I heard a lot of discussion about the Civil Service and about the amount of power that it had been given because of direct rule.
The Progressive Unionist Party believes that there need to be 10 Ministers and 10 Departments, because the agreement says that we need to represent society. If we do not have these Ministers and Departments, we will not be able to provide recognition for all the people who make up our society. We also believe that it needs to be done quickly for that very reason. We need to get rid of the status quo and show people that this is a new beginning.
We need to ensure that those Departments can deliver a service to the people. We should not sit here for the next two years, doing exactly what the Labour Government are doing now, or what the Tory Government did before them for 17 years. They made lots of mistakes, and we have an opportunity to put those mistakes right. We know the problems in this Province.
We know that only the top 20% of our young people get a decent education. Many of us represent working-class areas where education is disadvantaged, and we need to change that. Sinn Fein Members have to realise that their people do not have a monopoly on disadvantage or deprivation. When we get to the equality agenda, Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour Party will have to recognise that we also have problems, not only in terms of socio-economic issues, but in terms of our culture.
That is why we need to ensure that we get these Departments right. We also need to make sure that the delivery mechanisms and the programmes are right. We support Junior Ministers, because we believe that they could push these programmes.
We hope that other Members will support us in this. We need to move as quickly as possible to make any headway before Christmas. The parties have been around for a long time, and they know the issues. They should also know the Departments that are needed.
I am not sure that the economic argument is one that stands up. There are opportunities already mentioned by the First Minister (Designate), in terms of the Chancellor’s money. Is the money additional or not? If it is additional, how can we use it? We should not be worried because we will have a Minister with the departmental responsibilities. Then we have to pay for civil servants. If the money is delivered to people on the ground, and the intervention is at the right level, let us do it. Let us not waste money but make sure we spend it correctly.
In terms of the Departments, who is going to be given the "poisoned chalice" of Health? We do not have that problem. We can sit back in constructive Opposition and criticise when mistakes are made. It will be interesting to see who gets it – and we hope that he gets it right. We hope he does better than those before him did.
The Progressive Unionist Party believes that in all parties in this Assembly there are people who would be quite capable of taking on the ministerial and junior ministerial roles, and while we will not be out to criticise those people we will make sure that they do their jobs and where necessary we will provide constructive criticism. We recognise that over the summer months the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First (Designate) Minister did not have the time to do the necessary amount of consultation work, but let us hope that in the next few weeks it can be done quickly.
The Progressive Unionist Party will certainly be proposing that there be 10 Ministers and 10 Departments, and we will be outlining them in great detail. I hope that the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) will pay as much attention to our paper as they will to those of the larger parties.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition Party welcomes this opportunity to respond to the report by the Deputy First Minister (Designate) and First Minister (Designate). We have relied on an unaccountable form of Administration for too many years, but now we have the opportunity to take accountability for our own future.
Much work is required to mould this new Government and Administration, and it needs to be done both strategically and collectively. However, we could move so fast that we do not take enough time to look at continuity and what needs to be put in place. This is the difficulty we face in building these new Departments. We have to ask ourselves what was there before, what worked and what did not work; and what must we now put in place that could possibly work.
DrPaisley mentioned the Civic Forum, which is preceded by the word "consultative". Who could possibly see it as a disbenefit to the Assembly that we consult? There are many trade unionists, business people and members of civil society currently implementing structures in health, education and in the world of sport and the arts who would be only too glad to lend themselves to that consultation process. We have a responsibility as elected Members to consult them on how they see the way forward.
When the Deputy First Minister (Designate) talked about our rights, he was correct to also point out our responsibilities. We have a right to put these Departments in place, and we have the responsibility to ensure that they work. The people of Northern Ireland know only too well that one does not constantly demand one’s rights without taking one’s responsibilities just as seriously.
Another huge responsibility for us is that of putting the community to the fore rather than our own party political needs. In response to MrMcCartney’s point, may I say that my Colleague, MsMorrice, was not just protecting the agreement in a partisan fashion; she was protecting the agreement in its totality. No matter whether she feels on any given occasion that representing a Nationalist part of the community or a Unionist part of the community, she tasks herself with the larger job of representing all of the community. That is the responsibility which we now have.
We have currently a number of Departments with high expenditure and large policy units. These need to be looked at. The Deputy First Minister (Designate) has suggested that we should look at integrated policies across all the Departments. The issues of equality, human rights and reconciliation need to be looked at with regard to integration. It is, however, such a large portfolio that it may need its own ministry. It struck me very forcefully on entering the Building today that there was a table to my right which carried the legend "Strangers". I thought "Who are they talking about? Are they talking about the Members of this House who do not know each other or about the people who are coming for one day?". I think the Department that deals with equality, human rights and reconciliation will have to consider the issue of "strangers".
There are other issues we have never had to deal with before which we will now have to tackle. What do the victims in society need? There was not time when negotiating the agreement to deal with that question. After our most painful and cruel summer we now need to look at it as a serious resource issue.
On the issue of children and young people, Government Departments were established before issues of child abuse or violence against women and children were recognised as problems. When something is named one has a responsibility to put in place policies and to ensure that they are enforced. We have named our new problems. Let us build a new Government which will take them on board.
The current departmental structures are problematic. The Department of Agriculture, for instance, has a problem when it is dealing only with the producer and not with the consumers. Is it right, for instance, that the producers of food and those responsible for food safety should sit within the same Department? That is one example. Where do we integrate and where do we separate?
One thing that we felt very strongly about when we were negotiating the agreement and which, as MrMallon said, will be an integral part of the new decision-making process was the Civic Forum. There are many voices which were never traditionally heard in Northern Ireland. Perhaps DrPaisley was right when he said that they were politically homeless and that they are represented by the elected Members of this House.
I would argue that it is going to take many, many years for people to join the political parties as they are now constituted. Some people cannot, because of their jobs or occupations, be seen to be associated with political parties. That does not mean that they are not playing a huge role in society. I believe that we could have had an enormous crisis of Bosnia-type proportions if we had not had such a buoyant civic society to turn to at the height of sectarian divisions over the past 30 years. Let us build on it; let us not knock it.
There are many walls coming down. Let us build using the same bricks, the bricks of civic society, to put in place a different kind of forum. People outside are ready and we must show that we will soon be ready to put the structure in place.
My final question could perhaps be answered in the summing up. What is meant by paragraph 4.12 of the Interim Report? It says
"It is anticipated that the inaugural meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council will take place in the near future."
Who will be at that inaugural meeting? What is meant by the near future? We need answers. We have moved at enormous speed since GoodFriday, and some of us might have said that it was so fast that we could not keep up with it. We went from the agreement to the referendum, out of the referendum into the elections, out of the elections and into the first meeting of the Assembly in Castle Buildings, and now into our new building. We were right to move at that momentum — when there are vacuums, there is tension, and we must not create more vacuums because tension will increase. The Executive should be set up as soon as possible. We have meetings in place to help us do that, and thereafter we will establish the North/South Council and the British/Irish Council.
Finally, I would like to thank all those in the Secretariat who were responsible for this report. They have had an enormous job during the summer, but it is good that we have the report in front of us now, tiny, and interim as it is.
The people of Northern Ireland did not send us here, as Mr Hume said, to sit around and talk or to sit around and shout at each other, but to start building. We went out in June to fight and win elections. Now we have been tasked to govern and lead.

John Taylor: This has been a very reasoned and level-headed debate. Indeed, this is a very good initial formal meeting of our new Assembly for Northern Ireland here in our Parliament Buildings at Stormont. I, of course, have served in many devolved institutions in this building, in the old Parliament, in the two subsequent Assemblies and in the Constitutional Convention. Each of them failed in its own way, and that is history now. We now have a chance to move forward in Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, we meet against the background of what has been a tragic summer, and I join those Members who expressed sympathy to all who suffered from the terrible terrorist incidents, to the families who were bereaved, and to those who have suffered grievously, an experience of which I have personal knowledge.
MrAdams mentioned this Building. In time it will be a great asset for all the people of NorthernIreland. Decisions have been taken to spend £60million or £80 million on buildings for the Parliament in Edinburgh, the Assembly in Cardiff and the City Council in London. Not only have we saved money, but we will have the best building of any devolved institution in this nation.
Devolution is not just limited to the United Kingdom. The Republic of Ireland also will have to proceed towards devolution soon if it is to benefit from Objective 1 allocations by the European Union.
This debate is about the report from the First Minister (Designate) and his deputy, and we all owe them a vote of thanks for the way in which they have given leadership to the people of Northern Ireland during the last, most difficult, two months. I express my personal appreciation of DavidTrimble and SeamusMallon for the way in which they worked together at a time when they could have been so easily divided by the tragedies, and that would have had a divisive effect on the community in NorthernIreland.
I witnessed their working together while I was abroad on other business for the Council of Europe. I have seen it in the European media, and I have listened to foreign politicians. They are all impressed with the kind of new leadership that is emerging in NorthernIreland. In this report the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) have managed to make progress on all the fronts that we would expect them to, and they have done it quickly.
There has been much to do. There has been criticism that there is no real meat in this report but in the short time over the summer — a holiday period — they have managed to bring forward this report which covers all aspects of the NorthernIreland Assembly’s work. They deserve our appreciation. I know it has been a demanding time for them and their families, friends and colleagues. I thank them very much for this report which has been well received by Members.
MsMcWilliams asked about paragraph 4.12 and wanted to know the meaning of the phrase that the North/South Council would meet "in the near future". The First Minister (Designate) made it clear in his opening speech that the timetable for the North/South Council was quite inflexible. It is laid down in the Belfast Agreement and progress has to be made. He mentioned likely dates for the Assembly to meet to approve proposals for the first North/South Council meeting.
There has been much debate about the numbers of Departments, the number of Ministers, whether there should be a Minister for each Department and whether there should be shared responsibilities. That has all to be studied in detail, and that must be done on a consultative basis by the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) along with all the parties. I hope that when they do come to it — and I am glad to see there is to be some reference to European Union matters which are much more relevant now than they were in the previous Assemblies and the previous Parliament in this building — that they will cover subjects such as sport.
Sport should be given greater priority in Northern Ireland’s political life. We have had a great success today at the Commonwealth Games where we won one of the shooting competitions. [Laughter]. I am glad to see MrAdams laughing. It was with legal firearms, but it was a great achievement for NorthernIreland to win its first gold medal. Let us hope that it will win more. The NorthernIreland cricket team did well last week in KualaLumpur, and we are doing well in Gaelic — oh yes, Gaelic exists in NorthernIreland, and I recognise that. Unfortunately we are not doing so well in soccer, but EddieIrvine, whose home town is near my constituency, did well yesterday. We have a good record in sport, and we should give it greater support and emphasis.
The number of Ministers will, of course, relate to various subjects such as sport, the European Union, and all the various departments which presently exist in the Northern Ireland administration, but it will also depend on whether we are able to form an Executive. That, of course, raises the question of the decommissioning of illegal firearms and armaments, and those who have an influence on that matter will be required to address that before real progress can be made.
One of the problems in Northern Ireland life under direct rule — and we all know this, no matter what party we belong to — has been the rapid growth of quangos, of unelected people dictating what should happen in our communities throughout Northern Ireland. Of course, one of the reasons for that was that we did not have an elected forum representative of all the people of Northern Ireland. We have that now, and that means that we in this Assembly must begin to address the issue of removing many of these quangos and reducing public expenditure.
I will give Members one example. Road schemes are important, and the most important road scheme in Northern Ireland is the Comber bypass. The cost of building it is estimated to be £3million. Some years ago, the Northern Ireland Office created health and social services councils in Northern Ireland — quangos — in order to represent public opinion to the health boards. It costs £750,000 per year to run these quangos, the members of which are not known to the public and probably not even to the politicians. Abolish these councils and in four years we will have the £3million needed to build the Comber bypass. There is one example of how to run this country.
There are other important issues too, of course. For instance, we have far more levels of government in this country than any other region in Western Europe. That is the kind of issue that Members must address.
Of course, there is a role for the Civic Forum. It is recommended in the Belfast Agreement — I wonder how this term "Good Friday" came in. We should keep away from religious terms and stick to the proper name, which is the Belfast Agreement. The Civic Forum was one of the issues in that agreement, and we will make every effort to implement it. It must be considered in greater detail after more consultation. Numerous organisations are already taking an interest in it, which is encouraging. We must make sure that it is representative.
I am thinking purely of the business community, because although we do have organisations — and some of them now have Members elected to this body — nonetheless, some of those organisations are not totally representative of the business community in Northern Ireland. Ninety per cent of the firms in Northern Ireland that employ 10 or more people are not in the Confederation of British Industry, so how can the CBI claim to speak for business inNorthernIreland? The Institute of Directors isanexcellent organisation. However, there are 27,000directors in Northern Ireland and only 500 of them are in the institute. Let us get the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Trade involved — they represent businessmen in this community as well
We have an opportunity to look not to the past — much of which I take a pride in, incidentally, but there were mistakes as well — but to look forward and together, representing Nationalists and Unionists and those who do not know what they are. Let us try to work together to build a better Northern Ireland which will be peaceful and bring greater prosperity. Between us we can make NorthernIreland one of the stars of Western Europe.

Mr Eddie McGrady: It will not surprise the Assembly to hear that I wholeheartedly welcome this interim report. I endorse what MrTaylor said regarding the leadership and the example which was given to this community by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) by their manner in the midst of the very trying circumstances of what has been called "our wicked summer". They showed this community how we can overcome those who try to destroy us and those who try to divide us, and their very appearance together was a healing force at a time when that was most needed.
The agreement is similar to the iceberg: we just see the tip of it. All of us who have participated in the various Committees of this Assembly know well the quantitative work carried out by all the parties and the co-operation and the good will which existed in those Committees. Sometimes that imagery of hard work and co-operation has not always filtered out to the general public. Indeed, if they will forgive me for saying so, some parties would not like word to filter out that we have executive decisions to make, execute and act upon, following agreement among all the parties in respect of many matters affecting the administration of this House.
We accept the entitlement of Members to oppose the agreement and to uphold certain policies. However, I question whether it is right for parties to thwart the will of the people who have said in a referendum that they want the structures outlined in the agreement to be put in place for the governance of the Six Counties. Parties who are tempted to frustrate the will of the people must ask themselves that question.
Some Members have already indicated the enormity of the challenge before us. We have all been presented with a clean sheet — a square pad — in which we have to fill in all the details of the new Government from start to conclusion. That is an awesome task and it is allied to the urgency which is dictated to us not just by the agreement or by the legislation, but by very practical circumstances. I refer to the consequence of undue delays in the governance of NorthernIreland at the moment.
Some Departments are not acting because they are waiting for the outcome of our deliberations. Others are acting precipitously, introducing new policies and new ideas, knowing full well that we are opposed to some of those decisions. As we sit here, Ministers and civil servants are imposing policies and executing policy which is contrary to the cross-Floor support of this Assembly. This is a matter of great urgency that must drive us above anything else of a practical or political nature.
The structures that we are trying to put in place must be looked at from a radical point of view. A Member said earlier that there were many building blocks within each Department. But those building blocks do not have to stay within those Departments and they should be, and must be, moved around to give the improved delivery of service that we have promised to deliver to the people over many years of electoral campaigns. It is important that we address this issue quickly and urgently.
The agenda for equality of esteem and for equality of participation is cross-departmental and the necessity to have community relations enhanced and advanced is trans-departmental. But there are many other aspects, economic and policy-wise, of Departments that must be looked at in a very fundamental way to bring about the structures which will deliver the best possible service to the people we represent.
There are two constraints on that. There is the need to agree policy between ourselves for the administration of all those economic and social matters for which we will be responsible. That in itself is a very daunting task. Added to that, of course are the consequential financial burdens that we must carry. This Assembly must be frugal, as MrEmpey has said, and ensure that decisions do not waste money on administration which, the Social Democratic and Labour Party has always preached, should be put into services and their delivery.
This should be the urgency with which we must address these things. We must shorten the period of the vacuum which has been created and address these executive decisions which have been taken against our will. That is why the process must trundle on much more rapidly than any of us might wish.
There is a comment in paragraph 4.12 about the inaugural meeting of the North/South body. There is nothing hidden in that agenda that I can see. There is nothing that cannot and will not be addressed on the Floor of this House. We must have an inaugural meeting to discuss the broad parameters that will facilitate the process. That applies also to the British/Irish Council and to the Civic Forum — it applies to all.
What we really need is more trust between one another. Let us give one another that trust for the next couple of months and see where that gets us. All being well, we will have an effective and servicing administration that is endorsed by everyone in this Chamber.

Mr Peter Robinson: It is regrettable that the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) have failed to carry out the first task with which the Assembly charged them. They were charged, at our meeting in July, to bring forward proposals on all of these matters. They have not done so.
As far as the Democratic Unionist Party is concerned let me make it very clear that we intend to implement our manifesto commitment. That commitment is to hold the First Minister (Designate) and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to the pledges that they made during the referendum campaign, and when Members of the Assembly start talking about the great support that this agreement had from the people, they had better remember the basis upon which that agreement was reached.
It was reached because very clear commitments were given, in one case in Parliament by the Prime Minister, that substantial decommissioning had to take place before Sinn Fein would be allowed in Government, that they had to give up violence for good and they had to be committed exclusively to peaceful and democratic means. On that basis the Democratic Unionist Party believes that it is proper that it uses its energy and its talents in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland — and we will do that in or out of office.
As far as the Departments are concerned it is slightly nauseating to look at the attempt by some to carve up the Government of Northern Ireland on the basis of jobs for the boys. The only issue that the Assembly should be considering is how Northern Ireland can best be governed — how many Departments would allow for the best form of government.
Mr Hutchinson indicated that he believes that to be 10. He could be right. Few of us, if any, have sufficient experience of the workings of government to be able to make that judgement.
There is a case for looking at the status quo more closely in the initial period. I agree with the Alliance Party who drew attention to the Department of the Environment, being regarded sometimes as the "Department of Everything". It is far too large and should be split. There is a clear case for keeping the existing Departments, dividing the Department of the Environment into two and getting ourselves off the ground on that basis. Six months or a year down the line, with the experience that we have gained, we may decide whether there should be eight or more. Indeed, if we do not do that, the review will be CivilService-led. Civil servants will walk over Members in terms of their experience of what happens in each of the Departments.

Sir Reg Empey: If the number of Departments is entirely politically driven at the outset and we subsequently review that number in the light of experience, does the Member agree that it would be easy to go up to the top limit of 10 but virtually impossible to come down?

Mr Peter Robinson: I agree entirely. There are political difficulties in reducing rather than increasing in the future. One clear division that my colleague and I had with the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate) during our meeting was when reference was made to the issue of juniorMinisters. An attempt was clearly being made, on foot of an amendment by the Social Democratic and Labour Party at Westminster, to put that into the hands of the FirstMinister (Designate) and the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate). That would be contrary both to the agreement and to the Bill which is presently before the House.
The d’Hondt principle guides not only ministerial positions but also the positions of Chairman and Deputy Chairman. Without distinction, the section that deals with Executive authority in the BelfastAgreement states
"Following the election of the FirstMinister and Deputy FirstMinister the posts of Ministers" —
it does not reflect whether those are senior ministerial or junior ministerial posts —
"will be allocated to parties on the basis of the d’Hondt system."
Therefore it is clear that if the FirstMinister (Designate) and his Deputy were to step outside the terms of the agreement and the Bill, they would face serious legal difficulties and there would be serious implications for the workings of this Assembly. I urge caution upon them in case they determine to select their friends for junior ministerial posts and impose them on us.
Under the d’Hondt system, the task of making those nominations is given to the Leaders of the political parties or their nominees. As a party, we would not want the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to choose anyone for a junior ministerial post from among our ranks — not that they are likely to do so.
As far as the North/South structures are concerned, I was alarmed to read in the note that was presented to us from PaulMurphy that he saw the issues listed in the Belfast Agreement as a "baseline position".
The Democratic Unionist Party considers it to be beyond the limit — not as a baseline from which the Government or this Assembly may move. It goes far beyond what is acceptable to the Unionist community.
The other issue is in relation to the CivicForum. I do not believe that the CivicForum should meet in this Building. If it does, it will be considered as something of a Second Chamber. It is a consultative body. We have all had opinions given to us by people in the various sectors that are listed in the agreement, and I do not see a difficulty in their having expressed these views, but it is quite another issue as to how structured the presentation of those views should be.
Those are not the only sectors that should be considered. For example, MrTaylor referred to sport, an area of significant interest in NorthernIreland and one that should be considered by the CivicForum. Local government is clearly another important area that should be considered. The Civic Forum should not meet in Stormont and become a poor man’s House of Lords for the NorthernIreland Assembly.
I am also somewhat concerned at references in this document that was presented to the FirstMinister (Designate), the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate) and to the various political parties as part of the consultation. There is a clear indication that some civil servants view the new Assembly as an opportunity to change the way NorthernIreland is governed for their benefit.
To say the least, there is an implication in the agreement that the plan is not to make NorthernIreland more democratic, but to encourage something similar to the peace and reconciliation partnerships where various non-elected bodies are involved in government. The Democratic Unionist Party has common cause with the Ulster Unionist Party on quangos. We want to remove as many of those quangos as possible, as quickly as possible and make public life in Northern Ireland more democratic. However, to replace them and, indeed, replace local government with some form of even greater quango would be a retrograde step and one that I would not want the Assembly to support.
The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) have failed to grasp the key issue, which is that their report should have contained recommendations on the number of Departments and other issues. There is only one factor stopping them from doing that, and that is the reluctance of the First Minister (Designate) to grasp the nettle of Sinn Fein’s participation in government.
I agree with MrMcCartney: the Belfast Agreement makes it very clear that Sinn Fein is entitled to places on the Executive on the sole basis that the party uses its influence in respect of decommissioning. The First Minister (Designate) does not want to show the people of NorthernIreland that he misled them during the referendum campaign when he said that he could prevent Sinn Fein representation on the Executive. He must face up to that issue.
As soon as the Additional Standing Orders are agreed we will have a mechanism whereby Members other than the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can bring the issue of exclusion to the Assembly. If the Assembly judges that there is a party that is not committed exclusively to peaceful and democratic means, it has the power to exclude its Members from ministerial posts in the Executive. Certainly the Democratic Unionist Party will be willing to raise that issue in the Assembly and give the First Minister the opportunity, rather than sticking his chest out, to do something tangible.
The minutes of the meetings of the Ulster Unionist Party’s Assembly Members make it abundantly clear that many of them are not prepared to accept Sinn Fein in government. On the radio this morning MrTaylor berated the Democratic Unionist Party and said that since they sit down in councils with Sinn Fein they should be prepared to sit with them in government. If that is the position of the Ulster Unionist Party, then there is no bar to Sinn Fein being in government, as far as they are concerned. I would like to hear some of the Ulster Unionist Party’s Members saying whether they agree with MrTaylor on that matter.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: A Chathaoirligh, in alt 4.12 den tuairisc ón Chéad-Aire agus ón LeasChéad-Aire deirtear go mbeidh céad cruinniú na Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh-Theas ann roimh i bhfad ina ndéanfar plé cuimsitheach ar réimse leathan ábhar.
Aontaím go hiomlán leis an Chéad-Aire go bhfuil spriocdáta romhainn agus go gcaithfidh muid tabhairt faoin obair go práinneach. Ba chóir go mbeadh an Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh-Theas ag teacht le chéile go rialta agus go minic i rith an tréimhse idir an toghchán don Tionól agus an t-aistriú cumhachtaí chuig an Tionól. Deich seachtain i ndiaidh an toghcháin níor tháinig an Chomhairle Aireachta le chéile go fóill. Is ceart agus is cóir, mar sin de, go mbeadh cruinniú ann roimh i bhfad.
Ach is léir ón Chomhaontú gurb iad na hionadaithe ón Tionól don Chomhairle Aireachta Thuaidh-Theas an Chéad-Aire, an LeasChéad-Aire agus na hAirí iomchuí.
Is léir domh chomh maith go gcaithfidh na hionadaithe sin dul i mbun chlár oibre a chuimseoidh dhá réimse déag ábhar ar a laghad ina ndéanfar comhoibriú agus forfheidhm le go mbeadh an obair sin curtha i gcrích faoin 31ú Deireadh Fómhair.
Ní féidir leis an Chomhairle Aireachta Thuaidh-Theas dul i mbun an chlár oibre sin gan na hAirí iomchuí don réimse ábhar ina gcuirfear na comhlachtaí forfheidhmithe uile-oileán ar bun.
Aontaím leis na teachtaí eile ó na páirtithe eile a léirigh amhras nó a thóg ceist faoi rún an Chéad-Aire agus an LeasChéad-Aire ó thaobh na cruinnithe sin. Aontaím go hiomlán agus go háirithe leis an Ollamh McWilliams go gcaithfidh muid freagra a fháil faoi sin go luath. Ó thaobh ceist cá mhéad roinn nó cá mhéad aire a bheas ann, aontaím leis an Uasal Seán Neeson.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Will you rule on whether the Member has strayed from the subject?

Lord Alderdice: I have some difficulty even with those who are speaking English.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Aontaím go hiomlán leis an Uasal Seán Neeson nár chóir go mbeadh páirtí ar bith ag moladh méid áirithe roinn nó méid áirithe airí le bob a bhualadh in aghaidh páirtithe eile. Ní shin an modh oibre a ba chóir a bheith againn ag an phointe seo. Tá mé féin ag dúil, mar atá an tUasal Paisley, le tuairisc nó le moltaí cuimsitheach a théann isteach chuig na mionphointí faoin mhéid ranna agus faoin saghas rannóga a bheas ann. Tá mé ag dúil leis an mholadh sin roimh i bhfad.
Paragraph 4.12 of the interim report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) states that the inaugural meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council will take place in the near future, when
"we hope there will be a substantive exchange across a range of matters with Irish Ministers."
I agree with the First Minister (Designate) when he says that, given the approaching deadline, Members should approach this work programme with a sense of urgency. Therefore we need a meeting. The agreement makes it very clear that the North/South Ministerial Council should meet regularly in the time between the election of the Assembly and the transfer of power to the Assembly. Ten weeks have passed since the election to the Assembly and there has yet to be a meeting. I, therefore, agree that we need a meeting very soon.
The agreement also makes it clear that the representation from the Assembly to the North/South Ministerial Council consists of the First Minister (Designate), the Deputy First Minister (Designate) and any relevant Ministers. It is therefore clear that the North/South Ministerial Council cannot have the type of substantive exchange across the range of matters that is envisaged and we cannot put together a work programme which will bring into being the implementation bodies and complete that programme by 31October without the appointment of the relevant Ministers for those areas covered by the implementation bodies.
I therefore concur with Members from the other parties who have expressed concern about or questioned how that meeting should proceed. In particular, I agree with Ms McWilliams that we need to get clarification very soon on how the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) see that meeting. I acknowledge that MrTaylor said that we have had such an answer, but I do not believe that we had such an answer today.
With regard to the number of Departments or Ministers we need, I totally agree with MrNeeson that that proposal should not and cannot be put forward on the basis of scoring points against other parties. That is not the way in which we should proceed or the kind of example that we wish to set to others at this time. On the contrary, Members should consider the work of a Department and whether it best meets the needs of the people.
Dr Paisley said that Members should now be seeing detailed proposals rather than the vague information contained in the interim report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy Minister (Designate). Like DrPaisley, I too hope to see such detailed proposals very soon.

Mr Seamus Close: Mr Taylor expressed his thanks and those of his party to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) for the wonderful way in which they represented the community over the traumatic month following the happenings in Omagh. I agree. The vast majority of people in the area which I represent were struck by the manner in which their togetherness represented the new beginning for Northern Ireland, the coming together of its people, and it gave hope for the future. The way in which they performed their duties on our behalf must be commended by all Members.
Northern Ireland is entering a very exciting time. We are setting out on a path to provide a new form of government. In many respects its skeleton is represented by the Good Friday Agreement, a term which means a lot to me, for like Good Friday, this agreement offers hope to the people of NorthernIreland. The important thing about the agreement is that it has been accepted and democratically endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the people. The task that now confronts every Member is to set about putting some flesh on the skeleton of the Good Friday Agreement. It is a task which we should set about together. The importance of us striving together cannot be over-estimated because it is vital for the agreement’s success.
Many issues divide us, but the one thing we have in common is our democratic mandate. That mandate is equally important to each of us, and we operate from that basis. The people of Northern Ireland are demanding a new start. They have made their voices absolutely clear. Our responsibility is to translate that demand into action.
It is essential that we take the opportunity provided by the agreement to have 10 Departments. I do not see that as a way of providing ‘jobs for the boys’ because no one from the Alliance party will have any of those potential jobs. The Alliance Party believes in equality, not quantity, of representation. Although we will not qualify under the d’Hondt procedure for these jobs for the boys, it will not prevent me from arguing the case as to why there should be the maximum of 10 Departments.
Anyone who has dealt with Government institutions in Northern Ireland over the years will recognise that the existing Departments are cumbersome, in many respects meaningless, and in all respects unaccountable to the people of Northern Ireland. We must make accountability our key priority, and this can be best achieved by removing the weighty bureaucracy that has held down the potential dynamism in Northern Ireland. Free the people from bureaucracy. Hand control back to democratically elected representatives, and let them get on with running up to 10 Departments.
I could give a few examples. I once heard the Department of the Environment referred to as the Department of eejits, but I will not comment on that. It is a Department which is bureaucratic in the extreme. A massive job needs to be done to break it down and bring it closer to the people. Let us start peeling away the layers of the onion and get to the core of Government, represented through meaningful Departments.
I have spent the last quarter of a century of my life in local government in Northern Ireland. Our hands are tied at every turn. We cannot even change a light bulb without the say-so of a bureaucrat. Is that democracy? Do we not all want to join together in changing that? I believe the answer is yes. Is there not a strong case for allowing the dynamic that exists in local government to act on behalf of the people? Is there not the necessary dynamism there to create and operate a Department of local government, planning and housing?
One of the greatest potential growth areas in Northern Ireland is tourism. The way that tourism has been operated in Northern Ireland leaves a lot to be desired. Is this not another opportunity to develop that potential, to give that potential to the people and to make it a meaningful potential Department.
Sport has been referred to. There are numerous areas where we can have more effective and efficient Government. I take MrEmpey’s point about cost. The answer is to remove the unnecessary burden of costs that are currently imposed through quangos, unnecessary boards and trusts and the layer upon layer of administration all of which are costing money. We have the opportunity to strip those away and to get back to meaningful democratic and accountable Government.
As stated in the report, there are complex and challenging issues confronting us in shaping the future. A small step has been taken in this interim report. Let us build on it. My plea is that we build on it together. It is only by working together through this House that we will bring about the necessary improvements to the lives of all the people.

Mr Patrick Roche: It is not entirely unkind to say to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) that they got off to less than an impressive start. We were given this report, on which we were to give our views about five minutes before we came into this debate.
The reason for that delay is not suggested in the report but it is quite evident to the Members of my party. Last week we met the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), and they told us that there were two fundamental areas on which they could not agree. They could not agree on the substance of the remit that was given to them to determine the number of Ministries and the portfolio of each of the Ministries.
Secondly, they could not agree on a matter that is even more fundamental than the core administrative structures for Northern Ireland. That is, they could not agree on how to establish the democratic credentials of whatever form of government was to suit Northern Ireland within the Union. In other words, they could not agree on the issue of the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. It is absolutely crucial to be clear about this issue and to keep the focus on it, yet many speeches today have tried to shift our focus away from what is absolutely crucial to establishing the structures of proper government in Northern Ireland.
The reason the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) could not agree on what would establish the democratic credibility of the structures of Government in Northern Ireland is that the Deputy First Minister (Designate) has an absolutely correct interpretation of the Belfast Agreement: it does not require anyone to decommission anything at any time. But the problem with the First Minister (Designate) is that he sold the agreement to the Unionist electorate on the basis of pledges given by the Prime Minister which are entirely outside its remit.
We have now reached the position where, in order to set up an Executive, a decision has to be made on the requirements that are to be made on the issue of the surrender of terrorist arsenals to a lawful authority. That is the fundamental divide between the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). Having got caught in that position, MrTrimble has, in effect, agreed to a substantive thrust in this document.
There are no substantive proposals in the document, but there is a substantive thrust, which is, of concern to parties on both sides of the House. It is that before there is an agreed Executive and, therefore, before there are any coherent policy proposals or any programmes of government for Northern Ireland, because of the requirement in the Belfast Agreement to meet the deadline of 31October 1998, they are proposing to proceed to meet those requirements, not with a fully-formed Executive but simply by way of representation by the First Minister (Designate) and his deputy.
That is both contrary to the letter and to the spirit of the agreement and I find myself agreeing entirely, if I understood his position correctly, with the Sinn Fein Member’s interpretation of the agreement. I hasten to say that I find myself in agreement only with Sinn Fein’s perfectly correct interpretation of the agreement and not with its content, which was precisely the reason that our party rejected it.
MrTrimble now finds himself in a position of deadlock on the formation of the Executive and the core structures of government for Northern Ireland, and he is trying to obscure that deadlock by moving to put into effect the all-Ireland dimension of the agreement. Therefore, he is acting contrary to the interest of his own constituency, both in terms of establishing the democratic credentials of the agreement and also in terms of securing the position of Northern Ireland within the Union. He is doingthat because of the position that he adopted in relation to what was a primary matter in thereferendum: whether the agreement actually required decommissioning.
The problem is how to move away from the thrust of these proposals, and we must do so by insisting that there can be no development of any all-Ireland dimension prior to establishing the proper basis of democratic and accountable Government in Northern Ireland.

Mr Eddie McGrady: As it is now probably inevitable that the Omagh bombing debate will be deferred to tomorrow morning, may I suggest that this debate be extended to 7.00 pm because it is important and one to which many Members may want to contribute?

Lord Alderdice: It is my view, having canvassed the parties, that it would be improper to divide the Omagh debate. It would be discourteous and inappropriate. That being the case, we should not start that debate this evening if we are to give it its full three hours, as I believe we ought.
In that case we shall suspend the sitting rather than adjourn it and resume at 10.30 am tomorrow for a three hour time-limited debate. A number of speakers have indicated a wish to speak. If it is the wish of the Assembly we can simply continue and give those Members an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I reiterate what MrTaylor said in his opening remarks by commending both the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) on how they spoke and acted over the summer. Their conduct was a beacon to those in Northern Ireland who wished to see a positive way forward being shown by the elected politicians working for their good.
We meet today with an almost once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get the right Government for Northern Ireland. A once-only opportunity is certainly not to be rushed. One must not take an inordinate length of time, but we must take some time. I have not seen anyone in business or in any organisation determining structure before policy. To simply say we must have a particular number of Departments from which we determine policy is to approach the matter the wrong way. We need to consider the policy we wish to implement; after that will come the Departments. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party during the first stage, wants to keep to six or seven Departments. We are working through paragraph 35 of the agreement, which covers transitional arrangements.
Many Members have spoken about a lack of speed and about what we could be doing more quickly. Devolution is coming to all regions of the United Kingdom. The previous Conservative Government wanted devolution in NorthernIreland but not for Scotland or Wales. At least this Labour Government seems to be more principled in their application of policy throughout the United Kingdom. But compare Northern Ireland with Scotland; whose referendum was last September. There was a constitutional convention comprising all opinion in Scotland as to how devolution should take place.
We had our referendum in May. Already we have had our election to the Assembly; we have our First Minister and Deputy First Minister in place, and we are beginning the process of formulating how this part of the United Kingdom is to be governed. All that was done against a backcloth of 30years of violence, which makes it difficult to progress quickly on certain matters. The speed with which we have been acting, through the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) is to be commended.
Mention has been made of an island economy and the need, when working through all these arrangements, to work within one island. It is devoid of logic to say that one island must be one unit and one economy. Borders transcend land and water. The island of Borneo comprises three states; the island of Hawaii is part of the United States of America even though it is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. This agreement builds upon reality, the reality of the British/Irish isles and North/South and East/West working in co-operation to the mutual benefit of all.
Mr Roche said it was
"crucial to focus on this point".
He was talking about the democratic credentials. Then he told us
"We could not agree" —
that is the First and Deputy First Ministers —
"on the issue of decommissioning."
I agree that it is crucial to focus on this point. I have said this before, and I will say it again. We have been quite explicit about decommissioning. But the Leader of the United Kingdom Unionist Party, writing in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ on 1May1998 stated at point five of his eight-point plan, which he had announced the previous night on a television programme, that there were two criteria for political parties to be treated as equals — especially those parties linked to paramilitary organisations. We know what "equal" means. One was a permanent renunciation of violence and the other was a public dissociation from all forms of violence. Neither of those criteria mentions decommissioning as a prerequisite for being treated equally.
I stand by my interpretation of what he said. Before the United Kingdom Unionist Party questions the credentials of the Ulster Unionist Party on decommissioning, it should put its own house in order.
Money will be an important element in the workings of this Government. Until now money has been allocated to the rest of the United Kingdom as a transfer within Government, within the block grant. We will now have what is known as a territorial transfer.
Money will be allocated to Scotland and Wales, and it will now be seen how good, whether we like it or not, per capita, funding has been for NorthernIreland. Some will question why we receive so much and why we have facilities that they do not possess.
The LordMayor of London, speaking on behalf of the people of London, will be quick to point out that they are net contributors — they give more in revenue than they gain in spending. These questions will be asked, and therefore it is all the more incumbent on us to be prudent in our spending and not to rush a decision on structures. We must get our policy right and be sure where the money will be spent.
I conclude on a point of optimism. A young man who lives near me never spoke to me about politics until last week when he asked me how things were going. I told him I was hopeful. He said
"You must, all of you, make that work."
That young man’s father was a member of the security forces and he was murdered by the IRA. I took his words to heart. We must make this work and, therefore, I commend what the FirstMinister (Designate) and the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate) have initiated through this document.

Mr Mark Durkan: It is important in dealing with the issues in the report and the various suggestions that have been made during the debate, to bear in mind some realities. There are the realities of the agreement as well as financial realities and the structural requirements that we will need as an Assembly and, more broadly, as a community for the new dispensation.
MrNesbitt referred to paragraph35 of the agreement. As he said, it refers to the transitional arrangements. It was envisaged that in the transitional period Members serving as shadow Ministers would affirm a "shadow" pledge of office. The whole concept of the "shadow" pledge emerged in the negotiations because there was a requirement for people, on taking office, to make some pledge to the Assembly about the sort of commitments that they were prepared to undertake.
Various parties had suspicions about how shadow office might be exploited in the absence of a pledge, and that is why it came about. It was envisaged that Departments and shadow Ministers in those Departments would be identified during the transitional period. It is important that slips of memory about this are not allowed to upset the thrust of the agreement itself.
A case has been made for delaying the submission of proposals on the number and on the specific remits of Departments. I accept that there is a need to take care in how we constitute particular Departments. My colleague MrMcGrady said earlier that we have to be radical and, at the same time, practical. We have no wish to be reckless about finance when considering the constitution of new Departments. The Assembly will operate within fixed limits anyway, notwithstanding the Chancellor’s so-called "new money".
We put forward proposals during our meeting with the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) for 10 Departments, which would be assigned to 10 Ministers other than the First Minister and his deputy. We did so not in terms of "noses in troughs", or anything else that has been suggested, but on the basis of what we saw as public-service requirements. We believe that a strong case can be made for these 10 Departments, and that is why we have suggested them.
The departmental structure should be looked at on its own merits, divorced from the speculation about parties and personalities, because in designing departmental structures we are asking public servants to work in those Departments on the basis of their public-service roles and not on the basis of which Minister may or may not be assigned to them.
In designing departmental structures we are designing structures that are meant to serve the community in its entirety, to meet its diverse social, economic, cultural and environmental needs and therefore, we should take care not to allow the difficulties and differences that exist about the precise formation of an Executive to get in the way.
We should get on with the task of looking at those Departments now. This is our chance to offer people the first democratic dividend from the agreement. Let us do that. Let us not reduce it to a bunfight or trivialise it as some sort of party political cargo. In that context our plan for 10 Departments would stand scrutiny. These Departments would be worthwhile for any Minister and worthwhile for Members in terms of our opportunity to serve on departmental Committees.
One of the points that came up again and again in the talks about how the Assembly might conduct its business was whether we needed Ministers as such, or whether things might be done more generally by Committees. Those who favoured the Committee model wanted to make sure that Members of the Assembly other than Ministers would have a real and meaningful role. That means real and meaningful Departments. If some Ministers were in charge of Departments and some were not, that would create a premier league of Ministers, which would cause difficulties for the Civil Service at administrative level. It would also lead to problems in the Assembly in terms of opportunities for Committee participation by Members.
Obviously we will still need a Department of Finance, but our proposals envisage the personnel side of the current Department of Finance and Personnel being hived off into an office of public service, or office of public administration, resting with the First and Deputy First Ministers. The Department of Agriculture, as it stands, obviously covers important areas which can hardly be broken up. Our proposal is for a Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources taking in fisheries and forestry as before, and probably also minerals from the Department of the Environment as well.
We suggest a Department for Infrastructure, taking the Roads and Water Services from the Department of the Environment; ports and airports would go into the Department for Infrastructure as well. The energy grid would come from the Department of Economic Development into the Department for Infrastructure along with public transport and communications. That Department would be coherent in terms of the infrastructural demands that we face, and in terms of the important, albeit diminishing, role that the European structural funds can play. This Department would have strong economic significance.
We would then envisage an element of the Department of Economic Development as currently constituted being a Department covering enterprise, trade and investment, industry and commerce, commercial regulation, consumer affairs, et cetera.
We also suggest a Department which would be styled something like "Employment and Applied Learning" or "Employment and Human Resources Development", and we see that as taking in not just employment law, employment practice and labour relations, which currently come under the Department of Economic Development, but also the Training and Employment Agency and further and higher education from the Department of Education.
This Department would be responsible, essentially, for everybody over school-leaving age. If anyone queried the performance of the Assembly in employment, training, or education opportunity terms, we would have one clear reference base from which to see how well we are performing.
The Social, Democratic and Labour Party envisaged a Department of Social Support and Development, taking housing from the Department of the Environment and the Social Security Agency from the Department of Health and Social Services and combining them along with those community development and regeneration arms that have developed within the Department of the Environment. That Department can play not the sole role in terms of targeting social need, but an important role in helping to achieve that.
Over two decades, there has been talk about estate-based strategies being the way to deal with areas in need. The absence of coherent structures is one of the things that has frustrated this actually taking place. We have an opportunity to bear these sorts of requirements in mind when designing Departments.
A Department of Health and Community Care obviously would remain. We envisage a Department of Education which would concentrate essentially on pre-school, primary and secondary education as well as on services and broader, child-development issues. Perhaps that Department of Education could crack some of the outstanding difficult issues that so far we have not been able to crack such as our very deficient performance in the pre-school area and the question of selection, which many people at the negotiations will remember was the subject of a very animated discussion one particular day.
I welcome what other people have said about sport. We would propose to take that out of the Department of Education, along with culture, the arts and languages, and we put them, as Mr Neeson hinted earlier, with tourism. We think those areas complement each other in promotional and performance terms and not just in terms of bringing tourists in but also in terms of encouraging good services for visitors and interesting activities among the local population.

Lord Alderdice: I wonder if you could draw your remarks to a close.

Mr Mark Durkan: Yes, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.
The final one we envisage — these are not absolutes or demands but simply proposals to show that a good case can be made for 10 Departments — is in the area of the environment, a Department to take in planning, waste management, environmental protection and public safety. We see the Department of the Environment and Public Safety taking in the Fire Service and the other rescue services as well, because there is a watch-dog role in both of those areas to see how the different Departments are performing in environmental and safety terms.
We are quite open to different proposals and arguments, and have put forward certain proposals for functions that do have to rest with the First Minister (Designate) the Deputy First Minister (Designate), if they are to perform their overall responsibility for co-ordination to ensure good Government.
If we can set about creating such Departments and have Committees working along these lines, we can streamline all the litany of quangos which form the intermediary structures and sub-structures. This can best be done when we actually know what the Departments and the structures are.
I refute any suggestion that we have to create policy first and then structures. We negotiated an agreement that said that we were to appoint an Executive Committee which would, as its first task, produce a programme for government. It is clear from the agreement that the structures were to be in place before the policy.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Mr Nesbitt has said that the speed at which the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) have proceeded was to be commended. Many of us here were astounded at that comment.
This report is devoid of any real substance. It refers to meetings that began only last week — some months after the Assembly was elected. How he can make such a statement staggers me. But then nothing that Mr Nesbitt says surprises me — he manages to make an argument out of virtually no building blocks.
I listened with interest to MrDurkan outlining in some detail the arguments for various Departments and what functions they should have — indeed some cases may have great merit. Others have said why there should be 10 Departments. As my colleague MrPRobinson has said, that may well be the correct position in due course. However, at this time, none of us can argue definitively on that.
I was interested to compare the views of the Deputy First Minister (Designate) which were published in yesterday’s ‘Sunday Tribune’. I presume that he was talking about the Social Democratic and Labour Party and not for MrTrimble. He said
"We argue for the creation of a larger rather than a smaller number of departments, because this will facilitate the inclusion of parties in government."
There is nothing there about what is in the best interest of the government of Northern Ireland or about having Departments cater to the needs of Northern Ireland in delivering services. It is purely designed to ensure that it will facilitate the inclusion of parties in Government. He went on to deal with what each Department should deal with in terms of "real significance and substance".
When Members of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and other parties speak, they should be aware that the Deputy First Minister (Designate) is taking a line which is based upon ensuring that the number of Departments is decided for political reasons and that parties are represented. The primary reason is not, it seems, what is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that the Deputy FirstMinister (Designate) will respond to that. I regret the fact that both the First Minister (Designate) and his Deputy spoke at the start of this debate rather than having one of them deliver a winding-up speech to respond to some of these comments, as is normal practice in most debating Chambers of this nature.
The First Minister (Designate) spoke with enthusiasm of the real steps that were to be taken to ensure the North/South Council of Ministers would be up and running by the end of September so that real substantive decisions would be taken. There was a degree of urgency, he said, about all of this, yet when it comes to setting out the basics for the government of Northern Ireland, the report says absolutely nothing about Departments or about how we should administer Northern Ireland. The priorities are completely wrong.
The First Minister (Designate) said that the agreement could not work unless all of it is made to work. The problem for many Unionists, and for many people in Northern Ireland, is that they see certain parts of this agreement working overtime and other parts not working at all. People see prisoners being released despite the pledges by MrBlair and MrTrimble that people would not be released from prison unless violence was shown to be over permanently and forever. That clearly has not been the case. On the celebrated day on which the media made much of a statement issued by IRA/Sinn Fein, MrAdams said
"Sinn Fein is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means to achieve a way forward.
Sinn Fein believe the violence we have seen must be for all of us now a thing of the past, over, done with and gone."
On the day that that statement was issued a report in the ‘BelfastTelegraph’ in relation to the Real IRA and the attitude of the Provisional IRA towards that organisation stated
"In the space of 90 minutes, in an operation that hinted at the degree of organisation that the Provisional IRA is still capable of, each of the key dissidents heard the same rap at the door.
On doorsteps across Ireland they found pairs of men they would have once called comrades clutching the same piece of paper. They carried the same message: the Provisional IRA’s Army Council declared the Real IRA had no right to exist and had misappropriated weapons – a hanging offence for republicans.
They were told that "action will be taken" if they did not make amends. Some of the messengers felt the need to spell this out: if they did not do the needful, the Real IRA’s leadership would be shot."
The same day these weasel words were being issued for the benefit of the world’s press in Belfast for the Clinton visit. Of course, it was carefully worded, once again expressing an aspiration, a hope — not a commitment — on the part of the Sinn Fein that the violence was over, a thing of the past. Such a commitment could easily have been given, but different words were used to ensure that they did not say that the war was over once and for all.
While this agreement is delivering concessions to IRA/Sinn Fein in terms of the release of prisoners and the increasing demands and pressure for Sinn Fein to be admitted into the Government of Northern Ireland, we have yet to see any deliverance by them, in real terms, of what is expected of them in terms of decommissioning.
Of course, as has been pointed out absolutely correctly by my Colleague, MrRobinson (the Member for East Belfast), MrMcCartney (the Member for North Down) and others, there is no requirement in this agreement for any actual handing over of weaponry by the IRA before Sinn Fein can take up seats in the Government.

Mr Sam Foster: In light of what has been said, why are the Democratic Unionist Party and the United Kingdom Unionist Party giving incorrect justification for no decommissioning of weapons, giving support to the IRA today?

Mr Nigel Dodds: Mr Foster should join Mr Nesbitt in the realms of fantasy land. The reality is that the DUP has been absolutely clear and consistent on decommissioning. Mr Foster’s party said that there would have to be decommissioning before talks could begin. Then it said that there would have to be decommissioning by the IRA in parallel with the talks. Then it said it would have to be over by the time the talks finished. We were later told that there would be decommissioning before IRA/Sinn Fein went into the Government or before they would sit down one-to-one with MrAdams.
All those conditions have disappeared, and the preparations have been laid for them to sit in the Government with IRA without decommissioning. That is the real issue. Many Members have talked around it, talked about other issues, all of them important in their own right, but the most important issue is that of decommissioning and whether IRA/Sinn Fein are to be admitted into the Government of Northern Ireland while still armed to the teeth.
MrFlanagan, the Chief Constable of the RUC, has made it very clear that while troop levels have been reduced and military patrols have been withdrawn in Belfast, such paramilitary organisations are still intact and have access to arms and ammunition. They continue to pose a grave threat to peace, and they are still capable of carrying out atrocities such as the Omagh bombing. Yet we are contemplating allowing these people soon to sit in the Government of Northern Ireland while we have the sort of activity being carried out by the military wing of Sinn Fein, as outlined earlier, on the same day as they were issuing their statements about a commitment to peace and exclusively democratic means.
There are many important issues to do with democracy and accountability, and we in this party have always been to the forefront in championing all of our people and advocating proper democratic and accountable government in Northern Ireland.
But it is not in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland to be faced with the prospect of having Ministers in charge of Departments while they are sitting on 100 tonnes of Semtex, with ammunition and a paramilitary machine behind them. That is the sort of issue that we need to face. The First Minister (Designate) needs to come clean on that issue and not continue to waffle on it and try to play for time. He needs to spell out the position very clearly. At least the Deputy First Minister had the decency to make it very clear that he took a different position from the First Minister.
Let us have clarity from the First Minister. Let him state very clearly that in no circumstances will IRA/Sinn Fein get into Government unless substantial and meaningful decommissioning has taken place, and their paramilitary organisations have been dismantled.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh.
I begin by offering my condolences and those of Sinn Fein to the relatives of the five people who were killed today in a road accident in the south-east of our country, I think it was County Wexford. I am told that a lorry with a northern registration was also involved. I am sure everybody will share that sentiment.
I support the comments by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) in relation to the events of this summer, and the very great tragedies which occurred in Ballymoney and in Omagh. It was a very traumatic summer for all of us.
Of all the Members of the House, the one affected most directly was MrGibson. We should show him special consideration today. We all have very different political views, but everyone in Ireland who has been involved in this process of conflict resolution over the last four or five years was very struck and very hurt by what happened in Omagh, and aware of the implications that that undoubtedly had for all of us involved in this process.
MrNesbitt’s comments about the young person from his area who implored him to press on with the implementation of the agreement were similar to the response of the people of Omagh. I have been in Omagh on a number of occasions, and everyone I met — and they were not all Nationalists or Republicans; there were Unionists also — implored us to do our level best to ensure that the people who were out to destroy the search for peace, justice and equality in this country would not succeed.
I had my own first-hand experience of how hurt people are. Republicans have acknowledged that we have inflicted hurt; but hurt has also been inflicted on us. We are not just talking about the decommissioning of guns, we are talking about the decommissioning of all the injustice, inequality, discrimination and domination of the past.
I was in a building in Omagh on the day of the last funerals. I think it was MrsRushe who was being buried. As I left the building, a number of people wanted to shake hands with me. I offered my hand to one young woman who could not bring herself to shake hands with me and turned away. I accepted that and left the building. As I walked down the street, I heard a voice behind me calling my name. I turned round and it was the young woman. I went back to her and she said "I am sorry for turning away. I am a Unionist and I am hurting.", and she started to cry. I said that we were all hurting but that we were doing our best, and she said "I know you are doing your best."
Last week the First Minister (Designate) did not turn away. Considering his background, it was very courageous for him to meet the Leader of Sinn Fein, Mr Adams. In that meeting, they held out hope and expectation for all of those people who have been watching this process over the last four or five years. In fact, in the aftermath of the terrible summer, and following the meeting between MrTrimble and MrAdams, there is more support for the peace process now than there has ever been. People are urging us to do the right thing, to talk to one another, to engage in dialogue and to implement the agreement.
The agreement is about much more than this Assembly. It is about how we end division on this island; it is about the establishment of an Executive Committee; it is about the establishment of a North/South Ministerial Council; it is about the establishment of the implementation bodies; and it is about how we deal with the very important issues of justice and equality on this island. Sinn Fein represents a community which believes — and I know many people here within the most extreme elements of Unionism find this hard to accept — that since Ireland was partitioned they have been persecuted, dominated and treated unfairly in this state. That is the reality that Members have to deal with and that has given rise to conflict on this island over the past 70 years or so.
Members must work to bring about the implementation of the agreement and show, as we build that agreement in all its different stages, that we can get to grips with all that has been wrong in this state since Ireland was partitioned. I accept absolutely what MrHutchinson has said, that a great wrong was also inflicted on the Protestant working class, many of whom were also treated as second-class citizens.
There is a commonality of interest because there are still working-class people in the Shankill Road, in Mid-Ulster, in the Bogside and in West Belfast. The working-class are the strongest supporters of the peace process and these people are telling the Members to cut out the nonsense.
We know what is in the Good Friday Agreement. It is very clear. Sinn Fein discussed the issue of decommissioning with the British and Irish Governments in the run-in to the agreement and they took a very sensible view as to how the Assembly should deal with this particular issue. The Governments recognised, as de Klerk recognised in South Africa, that the issue of decommissioning should not be allowed to hold up the peace process. This is the approach that is catered for in the agreement document.
It does not say anywhere in the agreement that Sinn Fein cannot enter the Executive Committee unless there is decommissioning. But the object of the exercise, as far as Sinn Fein is concerned, is to decommission the injustices and inequalities of the past and to decommission all the British and Irish guns.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Mr McGuinness speaks about decommissioning and the South African precedent. Does he agree that South Africa now has the highest statistical murder rate in the world? Does that not demonstrate that leaving substantial stockpiles of weaponry in a divided society is a recipe for disaster?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I accept that there are very great problems and difficulties in South Africa. I have not said that both situations are exactly the same. There is a lot of crime in South Africa, many guns and much criminality — there is no question or doubt about that. But de Klerk, who was acknowledged along with NelsonMandela as one of the main architects of the peace process in South Africa, said that if he had insisted on decommissioning of weapons by the African National Congress, they would not have had the peace process. This process has now provided South Africa with the launching pad for dealing with political, social and economic issues and issues of criminality.
The Ulster Unionist Party is dealing with this issue in a very sensible way. Some parties do not want to face the process of conflict resolution; they do not want to face the reality that the best way to take British and Irish guns out of Irish politics is to remove all of the causes of injustice. This is what peace processes are all about. The question then becomes whether the Assembly believes that Sinn Fein is genuine. The Democratic Unionist Party will never accept Sinn Fein as being for real — I wish they would. I want to be friends with them. Some people within Ulster Unionism are dealing with this particular issue in a very sensible way.
We must press on with the implementation of the agreement. We have been informed that there will be a North/South Ministerial Council meeting before the end of this month, or possibly at the beginning of October. The big question for us has to be who will represent the Assembly on that Council. If the Assembly is represented by MrDavidTrimble and Mr Seamus Mallon, it will not be properly represented. The agreement states, under the heading "Executive Authority", that that is to be discharged on behalf of the Assembly by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and up to 10Ministers with departmental responsibilities. That is what we have to implement; we have to show people that we intend to deal with all the different aspects of life on this island that directly affect them.
The people of MidUlster are waiting with trepidation to hear an announcement from the Northern Health and Social Services Board on Thursday 17 September 1998 about whether the MidUlster Hospital is to be run down or closed. I recently attended meetings with the Department of Education about the prospect of the closure of schools in Mid Ulster, and I am sure that every constituency represented here shares these problems and difficulties. That is the argument for appointing Ministers as quickly as possible — and Mr Durkan is absolutely correct. The structures and Ministers should be put in place, and those Ministers should rise to the occasion and fulfil their responsibilities under the agreement by moving forward decisively and giving the type of leadership that all of our people crave for.

Dr Sean Farren: In complimenting the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) on their report, I would like to express to them the appreciation of the people of the North Antrim constituency for their concern and compassion following the terrible tragedy when the young Quinn brothers were so cruelly murdered. Their support and concern, particularly for the people of Ballymoney where the Quinn family lived, has been deeply appreciated.
I want to focus on one aspect of the report, the North/South Council. I look forward to the establishment of that council, not least because I have my origins in the South. I look forward to a council which will work to ensure stronger links between both parts of the island in particular, of course, for people of the Nationalist tradition. The council will represent, in a particularly symbolic way, their relationships and their affiliation with the rest of the people on the island. It will also represent and embody relationships which stretch right across our communities here in the North with all of the people in the South.
Those of us who participated in the transition programme last week will recall the very open acknowledgement made by some of the Southern contributors. For too long the South had all but ignored relationships and forms of co-operation with the North, apart from particular initiatives like the Erne Hydro Electric Scheme, the Foyle Fisheries, and the management of the Belfast/Dublin Railway. But since the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985 a very significant transformation has taken place with respect to co-operation between both parts of the island.
Since then, many initiatives have taken place over the years, some with European Union and International Fund for Ireland support, and these initiatives have ranged across virtually all social, economic and cultural domains. As we prepare for a new era of co-operation, it is appropriate to pay tribute to those behind these initiatives, those who have funded them and who have put the structures in place to help them operate. As a result, communities and enterprises in the public and private sectors, from both parts of the island, have benefited from the co-operation and pioneering work that has been taking place.
The establishment of the council will mean that future co-operation will be directed and enhanced, and much of it will be implemented within a political framework. This will bring a new openness, transparency and accountability to these initiatives and that will ensure the maximum benefit from resources and the potential of people in both parts of the island.
In identifying the areas of council responsibility, the Social Democratic and Labour Party believes that there are two fundamental requirements to be recognised: first, the overall social, economic and cultural context; secondly, the potential for ongoing development. Simply selecting areas at random, or because of minimal cost and ease of operation, without regard to the wider context or to existing forms of co-operation or to the possibilities for growth would be mere window dressing. Identifying key areas for the council’s initial remit must begin with existing forms of co-operation. In agriculture, these range across matters such as food safety, animal and plant health, stock breeding and wildlife management and protection to close contacts and joint initiatives under European Union programmes.

Dr Joe Hendron: With regard to implementation bodies, and in particular on the subject of health, some Members may be aware that NorthernIreland’s top cancer surgeon, MrRoySpence, and the professor of oncology at Queen’s University, ProfPatrickJohnston, made a joint proposal some weeks before the Good Friday Agreement. The proposal was on co-operation on cancer between the authorities in the North of Ireland and those in the Republic. Next to cardiovascular disease, there are more people dying from cancer on this island than from any other condition. From their viewpoint there is no reason, when millions of pounds are spent on cancer research, why there could not be co-operation in that field under an implementation body operating North and South.

Dr Sean Farren: With respect to all other areas for potential co-operation listed in the Good Friday Agreement, we have to look beyond the simple words that set them out and identify the existing forms of co-operation and the potential for development that lies therein. There are many possibilities, with respect to overall strategic planning, in connection with each of the 12. We have a requirement, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement, to identify those that would have particular implementation bodies associated with them. We believe that it is only by looking at what is currently taking place, and recognising the potential for development contained within those existing forms of co-operation, that the most effective implementation bodies to be established will be identified.
Ultimately, while all the initiatives and forms of co-operation promoted by the council will be intended to bring practical benefits to people and communities in both parts of Ireland, the real test of their efficacy will be the extent to which they promote closer bonds between our people and their communities. Those bonds will reflect deeper levels of mutual understanding, respect and reconciliation between Irish men and Irish women of all traditions.
The Social Democratic and Labour Party recognises and has taken note of the concern that has been expressed about progress towards the establishment of the North/South Council. We want to see all of the steps which must be taken in the Assembly taken without delay, particularly the establishment of its Executive.
In the agreement itself there is provision for the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) to advance and to co-ordinate responses from this Assembly with external bodies such as the North/South Council. We welcome the steps that they are already taking, as outlined in the report, and I hope that the Assembly will soon be in a position to ensure that an inaugural meeting of the Executive can go ahead. In this way we can initiate all the forms of co-operation and implementation bodies as foreseen in the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: When we come to this time of the year we are reminded of a new term; a fresh start; a new beginning. Some of us are parents who may have left our children to school, possibly for the first time. This year there is an expectation that there will be progress, that there will be a report. Certainly this Assembly has had an expectation over the last 12 weeks that there would be a report. We are told that we have got a report, but it is a very skimpy one. Indeed, if the report was to describe the progress of one of our offspring we would probably say "Could do better." In fact, we could say it was a failed report.
There has been much progress over the summer in other areas. For instance, progress was made on this Chamber and many Members have referred to our beautiful and elaborate surroundings. They have commended the workmen, people who were once the targets of individuals in this Assembly because they worked on Her Majesty’s buildings. We congratulate those workmen on their efforts.
There has also been progress outside theAssembly, in the degenerative sense, in terms ofterrorism. Since Good Friday, since the agreement and the so-called new dawn, the "New Beginning", there has been the progress of TonyBlair’s agreement, BertieAhern’s agreement, DavidTrimble’s agreement, SeamusMallon’s agreement, GerryAdams’s agreement. But what has that progress been? Some 691 people have been put in hospital because of paramilitary violence; more than 37 people have been butchered and murdered by terrorism; 48 people have been shot and brutalised by paramilitary organisations; and there have been six car bombs.
Of course, there has been much more. In my constituency little children have been burnt to death because of violence and terrorism. Oh yes, the terrorists have been very busy over the last 12 weeks. I am glad to see that in the case of the Quinn murders, the police seem to have made some progress. Sub judice prevents me from saying anything further on that.
It is sad that the security forces do not appear to have made the same progress in capturing the people who were involved in the other violence that I mentioned. I think that we will see a very familiar pattern just as we did after the Enniskillen bomb. All the flurry, the excitement dies away. It is buried and forgotten, and nobody is caught, convicted and put into jail. Even if they were put into jail, would they stay there for very long? The people who support this agreement believe in a principle that politics means there can be expediency when it comes to convictions that people can get out of jail early, no matter what the heinous crime.
In terms of the interim report, the Assembly tasked the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) to construct basic structures and to prepare for the establishment of the British/Irish Council and so on, but they have failed to produce anything of substance.
There has been some progress in other areas. There have been jobs for the boys and promises that certain people can expect certain posts. There is the expectation that certain schools in certain areas might get some more money because certain individuals are now well-placed in this Assembly. Certain hospitals might gain because they happen to be in certain individuals’ constituencies.
We have heard all the promises, and we can read between the lines. The general public can see for themselves that the new faces, the new functionaries, the new policies will probably create a Northern Ireland which, far from being at ease with itself, will continue to have that tension, concern and unease that has been generated by terrorism for the past 30years.
I listened with some interest to MrNesbitt’s comments. In a JimmyCarter-style address he said that he had spoken to a young person who had told him many things, and that he, MrNesbitt, now intends to use that talk as empirical evidence to move forward his policies. MrNesbitt said that he commends the report. This skimpy report, which MrNesbitt commends to this House, is incomplete. It does not contain proposals, so MrNesbitt is commending nothing.
When my party’s delegation met the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) we spent some time talking about the detailed outline proposal which had been placed before all the parties. As we went through that proposal, the two Ministers decided to move away from the contents of that document. They told us their ideas for a form of local government, for the reform of the Civil Service and even for tax-raising powers. It seems that these people have been given a task, and they are not prepared to get on and do it. They are looking at a whole lot of other tasks instead, but they should concentrate on the matter at hand. They have been given power and they do not know what to do with it.
I do not believe that what is in this skimpy report nor that the agreement that is the basis for it will lead to good government for Northern Ireland. It will lead to bad government. The Sinn Fein/IRA Member MrMcGuinness said that because of the stance taken by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, there is more support than ever for the agreement. There may be more support within the Republican movement, within Nationalism, but there is declining support for the agreement within the Unionist community. That is not just my view, it is the view of the Ulster Unionist Party.
The minutes of a meeting held in this building on 6August show that MrNesbitt said to MrIngram
"I am livid with Her Majesty’s Government – Sinn Fein must be told that the process will move on without them – we have nothing left to give."
He did not say that to Sinn Fein today. There will be another broken promise because in a matter of weeks Mr Trimble will give Sinn Fein places in the Government of Northern Ireland.
A Member from my constituency has claimed that the Unionist vote is wavering and that there is a real risk of civil war. He said that the Unionists need something to keep some faith with the electorate. We also have Mr Empey’s earlier quotation.
The First Minister and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) ought to confirm that there are great divisions between them. They are partners in government who cannot agree on the fundamentals of decommissioning, on when and how it should take place, or on who should have executive powers in the proposed Government of Northern Ireland.
Things are not good for the Union or for this country because of the agreement and the political landscape ahead of us. Many people are talking about peace. No one craves that more than my generation. Peace, however, is not solely about the absence of conflict, which we do not yet have. It is about the presence of justice, honesty, integrity and democracy.
The process that is now being established, that is rolling forward and being given a fair wind by Ulster Unionists, who ought to know better, is leading us not towards greater peace, but towards an acceptable level of peace. We had acceptable levels of violence in the past, but they were unacceptable. Now we are to have an acceptable level of peace, but that will not be real peace.

Ms Mary Nelis: The cover of the agreement states
"This agreement is about your future. Please read it carefully."
When I listened to some of the comments today I wondered whether some Members had read it at all. On the cover it also states
"It’s Your Decision".
Of course it is our decision. The decision is about our future and it is our awesome responsibility to decide the future of the people of this entire island. The Assembly is the outworking of the agreement.
Someone earlier referred to "solid democracy". We have never had democracy in this country, let alone solid democracy. But now we may be able to achieve the democracy that the people who voted for this agreement want. We are charged, by the agreement, to create a society that is inclusive, consultative and democratic.
I want to address that part of the interim report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) which deals with the Civic Forum. Paragraph 4.15 states
"Substantive discussion on the consultative Civic Forum was also limited."
I thought that the Civic Forum would be given the same priority as all the other issues in the report, and I am disappointed that it has not been, but then the report is not substantive.
A consultative Civic Forum will be of great value in assisting the Assembly discharge its responsibilities under the agreement. If properly constituted, it will be the opposite of the undemocratic quangos which we have already heard so much about, and which were the brainchild of the former ToryGovernment. Their members were appointed by Tory Ministers and, on the whole, represented the well-heeled tradition. The Civic Forum has the capacity, for the first time, to include civic society in a truly transparent manner and to influence the Assembly’s deliberations for the benefit of all the people of this island.
Those in the Chamber who are arrogant enough to think that, because they have been elected, they do not need to listen continually to the people or to be open to the suggestions of such a Forum, are not fit for governance, and they certainly are not, and should not be, part of any democracy. I suggest that the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) consider in a very proactive manner how to put in place a Civic Forum that will include the voluntary community, the business sector, the trade union sector and the young people that MrNesbitt spoke of. That is vital.
I support Prof McWilliams and my colleague MrsdeBrún on the issue of the North/South Council. It has not been dealt with in this report; it has been fudged. We need to know how it will be constituted and when it will meet.
I say to MrTaylor that it is not surprising that the North of Ireland did well in the Commonwealth Games in the shooting events when there are 133,000 legally held guns here, most of which are at the disposal of his community. When we speak of decommissioning in terms of the agreement, we should have the objective of creating a society where all guns are removed, a society that reflects inclusion, equality and democracy.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I have very little time, so I will speak very briefly about the Civic Forum. It will add a very important dimension to the fledgling democracy and new dispensation that we are about to enter.
The Forum is a welcome development which will establish a truly inclusive democracy and will provide an interface between the public and the decision makers. The expertise which the various sectoral interests can offer — [Interruption]
When women begin to speak some gentlemen in the Chamber feel free to begin a free-for-all.
As decision-makers, we face difficult challenges and choices, and will have to face conflicting interests. The insights that the various sectoral interests can give us will be very important and helpful to us in reaching informed decisions.
The point that I want to make very clearly — and Mr Taylor referred to this earlier — is that the Confederation of British Industry is not necessarily representative of all business interests. Other organisations have traditionally represented the various interests in Northern Ireland. They are not any longer necessarily truly or totally representative of those interests, and we should be aware of that when we look at the areas that have been mentioned in the agreement, such as business, the trade unions and the voluntary sector.
We should recognise that when these organisations come together in the various fora, there is often a great imbalance and the sectors that are often left out most particularly consist of women, who represent more than 50% of this society but are under-represented in most of these fora. We need to address that.
There is also a need to address the lack of representation of the most vulnerable sectors of our society — the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed and, of course, as Mrs Nelis mentioned, young people. It is important for all those people to be involved in the Civic Forum, and mechanisms must be found to involve them.
The challenge before us is daunting, but in an accountable democracy a fully inclusive and representative Civic Forum will ensure that we come to our difficult decisions in an informed manner and with an awareness of the needs and the views of all sections of this society, because none of us has a monopoly of knowledge and all of us can do with a little extra help.

Lord Alderdice: May I express my appreciation to Members. In this very long debate there were many who wished to speak. Not all could, but I have tried to keep a degree of proportionality and at the same time give all parties an opportunity to put forward their views. We are all learning in this process, and I am grateful to those who have been helpful and accommodating.
The First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) have waived their right to reply at this stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly takes note of the report prepared by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) and grants leave for the preparation and presentation of such further reports by the two Ministers as are considered necessary.
The sitting was suspended at 5.55 pm.